Sickening Hit Piece on Rand Paul Published in NY Times

[nbruno322]

hxxp://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/us/politics/rand-pauls-mixed-inheritance.html?_r=0

It would be foolish to expect anything less than the unrelenting hostility the mainstream media showed Ron in 2008 and 2012.

I'll never forget how they decided to highlight and pump the discredited newsletter crap for the 100th time just as Ron was gaining unstoppable momentum in Iowa in the 2012 race.

[helmuth_hubener]

Viglink breaks the link for us now, you know.

Then again, I guess an unbroken viglink url probably would still count as a reference to Google, and thus raise its search relevance.

[nbruno322]

Viglink breaks the link for us now, you know.

There I unbroke the link, thanks for the info.

[Anti Federalist]

Not clicking on the link.

Post a couple of relevant passages or let the thread die.

Government propaganda organ is organing.

[specsaregood]

Not clicking on the link.
Post a couple of relevant passages or let the thread die.
Government propaganda organ is organing.

Here you go AF, this is just up your alley.


The libertarian faithful — antitax activists and war protesters, John Birch Society members and a smattering of “truthers” who suspect the government’s hand in the 2001 terrorist attacks — gathered last September, eager to see the rising star of their movement.

With top billing on the opening night of the Liberty Political Action Conference, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky told the audience at a Marriott in Virginia that a viable Republican Party must reach out to young people and minorities.


the intro is especially funny since it is libertarian faithful, war protestors and truthers that seem to post the most shit against rand here. lol

[enhanced_deficit]

It is more shocking they are still in business.

Although have not seen any confirmed proof in MSM that NY_propaganda_times owners/"journalists"/editors were embedded with See Eye Aey or No Such Agency or O's pupppet masters.

[nbruno322]

Not clicking on the link.

Post a couple of relevant passages or let the thread die.

Government propaganda organ is organing.

The libertarian faithful — antitax activists and war protesters, John Birch Society members and a smattering of “truthers” who suspect the government’s hand in the 2001 terrorist attacks — gathered last September, eager to see the rising star of their movement.

But not long after the applause died down, Mr. Paul was out the door. He skipped an address by his father, former Representative Ron Paul, as well as closing remarks by his own former Senate aide, an ex-radio host who had once celebrated Abraham Lincoln’s assassination and extolled white pride.

Some scholars affiliated with the Mises Institute have combined dark biblical prophecy with apocalyptic warnings that the nation is plunging toward economic collapse and cultural ruin. Others have championed the Confederacy. One economist, while faulting slavery because it was involuntary, suggested in an interview that the daily life of the enslaved was “not so bad — you pick cotton and sing songs.”

He has renounced many of the isolationist tenets central to libertarianism, backed away from his longstanding objections to parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and teamed with members of the Black Congressional Caucus in calling for an easing of drug-sentencing laws. He recently unveiled a plan for investment in distressed inner cities.

At 5-foot-7 or so, he will sometimes step in front of a lectern, lest he disappear behind the microphone as he talks about the evils of taxation or a Big Brother “surveillance state.”

Rand Paul’s difficulty separating himself from harder-edge libertarianism was brought home last summer. The Washington Free Beacon, a website tied to hawkish conservatives, reported that one of his Senate aides, Jack Hunter, had a long trail of provocative statements — some made when he was a radio host calling himself “the Southern Avenger.”

A leader of the Charleston, S.C., chapter of the secessionist League of the South, Mr. Hunter had praised John Wilkes Booth. For two weeks, Mr. Paul stood by him amid news media attention, but finally let him go.

Mr. Rothbard applauded the “right-wing populism” of David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan member who ran for governor of Louisiana, and ridiculed “multiculturalists,” lesbians and “the entire panoply of feminism, egalitarianism.” Some of these ideas found their way into Ron Paul newsletters that became an issue during his campaigns.

Several current Mises fellows and associates are regulars on the Ron Paul speaking circuit and affiliated with his home-schooling curriculum or foreign policy institute. Thomas E. Woods Jr. was a co-author of “Who Killed the Constitution?,” which denounced the Supreme Court decision desegregating schools, Brown v. Board of Education, as “a dizzying display of judicial imperialism.”

Walter Block, an economics professor at Loyola University in New Orleans who described slavery as “not so bad,” is also highly critical of the Civil Rights Act. “Woolworth’s had lunchroom counters, and no blacks were allowed,” he said in a telephone interview. “Did they have a right to do that? Yes, they did. No one is compelled to associate with people against their will.”

Mr. Paul went on “Infowars.com,” the program of the conspiracy-oriented, libertarian-leaning radio host Alex Jones.

At Mr. Jones’s urging, Mr. Paul promised to resist any overtures from the so-called Bilderberg Group — more than 100 movers and shakers in politics, industry and finance who meet each year for informal discussion. Mr. Jones claims the group is conspiring to create a unitary “world order.” Mr. Paul also warned against the creation of a North American Union, modeled on the European Union.

In a meeting with the editorial board of The Louisville Courier-Journal, Mr. Paul revisited the perceived sins of the Civil Rights Act. Next came a 20-minute grilling by Rachel Maddow, the MSNBC host, in which he tried to explain how the libertarian principle of voluntary association entitled businesses, but not the government, to practice bigotry.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page, assailing him for defending Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked classified documents about the agency’s spying, said he was unsuitable as commander in chief. “As president, Mr. Paul couldn’t behave like some A.C.L.U. legal gadfly,” the editorial said.

[nbruno322]

The article is a good lesson in media propaganda and guilt by association.

[willwash]

well luckily, the NY Times is rapidly becoming irrelevant along with the rest of the mainstream media.

[Anti Federalist]

Blarg blarg - truthers - blarg blarg - John Birch - blarg blarg - racists - blarg blarg - Snowden - blarg blarg - conspiracies - Blarg belch.

Yawn.

Poor bastard can't catch a break...they throw the War Street Journal's anti-Snowden slime in there as well.

That's why you shouldn't pander Rand, you will NEVER get a fair shake from the government media complex, left or right.

Tell them to fuck off, pound salt, stand by your convictions and press forward.

[nbruno322]

Blarg blarg - truthers - blarg blarg - John Birch - blarg blarg - racists - blarg blarg - Snowden - blarg blarg - conspiracies - Blarg belch.

Yawn.

Poor bastard can't catch a break...they throw the War Street Journal's anti-Snowden slime in there as well.

That's why you shouldn't pander Rand, you will NEVER get a fair shake from the government media complex, left or right.

Tell them to fuck off, pound salt, stand by your convictions and press forward.

+1 for truth

[phill4paul]

Blarg blarg - truthers - blarg blarg - John Birch - blarg blarg - racists - blarg blarg - Snowden - blarg blarg - conspiracies - Blarg belch.

Yawn.

Poor bastard can't catch a break...they throw the War Street Journal's anti-Snowden slime in there as well.

That's why you shouldn't pander Rand, you will NEVER get a fair shake from the government media complex, left or right.

Tell them to fuck off, pound salt, stand by your convictions and press forward.

Yup. Just wait until the primaries.

[LibertyEagle]

Blarg blarg - truthers - blarg blarg - John Birch - blarg blarg - racists - blarg blarg - Snowden - blarg blarg - conspiracies - Blarg belch.

Yawn.

Poor bastard can't catch a break...they throw the War Street Journal's anti-Snowden slime in there as well.

That's why you shouldn't pander Rand, you will NEVER get a fair shake from the government media complex, left or right.

Tell them to fuck off, pound salt, stand by your convictions and press forward.

Rand has gotten people to come more our way doing it his way. Ron already won over the people described in that article. Now, for the other 98% of America.

Damn, he gets insulted in the mainstream press and insulted in a forum bearing his father's name. Sickening.

[LibertyEagle]

Yup. Just wait until the primaries.

Can't wait, can ya? Just think, then you can get all smug and say, "I told ya so". Whoopee!

[Anti Federalist]

Rand has gotten people to come more our way doing it his way. Ron already won over the people described in that article. Now, for the other 98% of America.

Damn, he gets insulted in the mainstream press and insulted in a forum bearing his father's name. Sickening.

Who's insulting him?

[phill4paul]

Rand has gotten people to come more our way doing it his way. Ron already won over the people described in that article. Now, for the other 98% of America.

Damn, he gets insulted in the mainstream press and insulted in a forum bearing his father's name. Sickening.

Give it a rest. All you ever do anymore is snipe, snipe, snipe. Like a little chihuahua because someone gets too close to your toy even if they have no intention of grabbing for it.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4048/4526697449_244881eee4_m.jpg

[phill4paul]

Can't wait, can ya? Just think, then you can get all smug and say, "I told ya so". Whoopee!

Just shut the fuck up already.

[LibertyEagle]

Just shut the fuck up already.

Too much TRUTH for ya?


Give it a rest. All you ever do anymore is snipe, snipe, snipe. Like a little chihuahua because someone gets too close to your toy even if they have no intention of grabbing for it.



Ok, let me tell you what I see. Thread after thread and post after post of people bitching, moaning, hating and whining about what is going on and very few getting off their lazy asses to do something about it. I see people high-fiving each other for some dumbass post on a message board, doing chest bumps and calling each other patriots all because they bitch and moan well.

Bitching, moaning, complaining and hating on a message board does NOT make someone a patriot. If you want to change anything, get out there and DO something constructive.

[69360]

Interesting that the people they try to guilt by association him with don't even like him and won't vote for him.

[AuH20]

Best comment I have ever read. Ed from brooklyn. I think Ed needs to lay off the government distributed meds:


Mixed inheritance? What's mixed about it? Seriously. His commitment to "Freedom and Liberty" only applies to fellow white, property owning, Christian males. He rails against his TSA pat down, but he is silent on Stop and Frisk. He has sponsored legislation saying that life begins at conception. He is a draconian theocrat and a corporate apologist (yes, Mr. Paul, BP was being bullied. Right.)

And, quite frankly, I think he is very dangerous. I would not want to live in his vision for America.

[AuH20]

Howie from Massachusetts:


This is the radical right fringe of U.S. politics! These folks would like to see seniors starve and go without medical care, give huge corporations a free reign to create more economic mayhem, try to bring racial and ethnic hatreds back into the political mainstream, let those who pollute the environment make up the rules for water, soil, food, and air safety, and have voters believe that no government is our single hope for the future. Yuck!!! Find another country to be part of...

Alex, I'll take Death Panels for $800...........................

[phill4paul]

Too much TRUTH for ya?

No, too much horse shit. You're so full of it that it spills out into any thread you enter anymore. AF wasn't insulting him. I will not be jubilant over the slings and arrows Rand faces just as I wasn't over those Ron endured. You're full of shit and have no where to forcefully expel it except on these forums. Take a break. Go join a knitting circle and bitch about that one "bad" neighbor.

[LibertyEagle]

No, too much horse shit. You're so full of it that it spills out into any thread you enter anymore. AF wasn't insulting him. I will not be jubilant over the slings and arrows Rand faces just as I wasn't over those Ron endured. You're full of shit and have no where to forcefully expel it except on these forums. Take a break. Go join a knitting circle and bitch about that one "bad" neighbor.

I called YOU on exactly what you were doing and you hate it.

Yup. Just wait until the primaries.

Too bad.

[phill4paul]

I called YOU on exactly what you were doing and you hate it.


Too bad.

LE, you're head is so full of horse shit that you can't see with your eyes or think with your brain.

[Occam's Banana]

Viglink breaks the link for us now, you know.

Then again, I guess an unbroken viglink url probably would still count as a reference to Google, and thus raise its search relevance.

I don't know how viglinks work. It may be best to break links to hit pieces just to be certain.

Breaking the link would also serve not to encourage hit-piece authors who hope to draw traffic to their sites by kicking hornets' nests like RPFs.

[asurfaholic]

I know its not always going to be roses and unicorns... But damn

[otherone]

At 5-foot-7 or so, he will sometimes step in front of a lectern, lest he disappear behind the microphone as he talks about the evils of taxation or a Big Brother “surveillance state.”



The hack is a statist AND a staturist. :rolleyes:

[GunnyFreedom]

comments worse than the article. No sense even addressing people that stupid and obstinate about it. One guy claims he can't win the presidency because he wears a toupee. :rolleyes: Mind you I am certain that it won't matter at all to the nutter that Rand does not in fact wear a toupee.

[AuH20]

Talk about programmed to serve the state and foolishly believing that he is part of the state:


There are questions I wish reporters would ask the senator: Do you support social security, medicare, medicaid, and ER care regardless of ability to pay? Do you support universal public education for children? Do you believe people should have to pay taxes? How would you collect them? Do your tax policies favor the rich? Do you believe the black helicopters of the UN have already launched to take your guns, knives, copies of the Constitution, and superhero comic collections? I have no interest in whether the senator has curls and a rumpled jacket. Others can undoubtedly think of better questions than I can, but please ask some real questions of the senator rather than simply being thrilled about his views on cannabis.

[AuH20]

If you have read most of the comments, most of the commentators hail from Massachusetts, California, Oregon and Washington. Very revealing I may add. I suspect they have surrendered all logic years prior.

"Libertarianism or variants of it are too simple to govern such a complex society as the United States?" Really? I remember there being a particular founding document of significant fame that was very clear in it's parameters. Like they say the devil is found within the details & the most vile megalomaniacs have been ecstatic with the historic opportunities that the progressive movement has provided them. Nothing is sacred and things can change at a whim! Thus, your rights & property are truly negotiable in their world.

[Bryan]

OK, everyone. Let's please keep it civil and go by the Site Guidelines. (See my sig).


Thanks!

[AuH20]

Battered spouse syndrome:


Rand Paul's views would be acceptable in 1800 in the mid-est. Then the next neighbor was miles away and you were on your own. If you did not feel you could survive or could not handle the stress, you could move to New York City. Today we depend on others, the government and employers. Rand Paul is 200 years too late. That is the nicest thing I can write about him and his ideas.

Tell the citizens of Louisiana this after Hurricane Katrina.

[AuH20]

The world is too complex for us to stop the wanton theft & abuse:


Libertarianism's appeal has always been its promotion of the self over society and a simplistic--if not vapid--view of the complexities of the real world. I very much doubt whether a true believer like Rand Paul will do anything to broaden the appeal of an ideology that simply cannot account for or cope with a three dimensional world.

The three dimensional world begs that we accept this new era of neofeudalism.

[NewRightLibertarian]

If you have read most of the comments, most of the commentators hail from Massachusetts, California, Oregon and Washington. Very revealing I may add. I suspect they have surrendered all logic years prior.

"Libertarianism or variants of it are too simple to govern such a complex society as the United States?" Really? I remember there being a particular founding document of significant fame that was very clear in it's parameters. Like they say the devil is found within the details & the most vile megalomaniacs have been ecstatic with the historic opportunities that the progressive movement has provided them. Nothing is sacred and things can change at a whim! Thus, your rights & property are truly negotiable in their world.

There is no injustice they wouldn't subject you to, as long as a mob of idiots voted for it to be so.

[AuH20]

Rand Paul, Corporate Raider in Main Street clothing?


With Chris Christie's presidential chances looking more and more doubtful, it seems corporate interests now have to scrape the barrel a little bit deeper to find a candidate who can promote their nihilistic agenda of unrestrained greed and social disintegration from behind a carefully contrived facade of white-bread suburban respectability.

Rand Paul presents an unprecedented challenge for the corporate media in terms of creating a marketable commodity. Christie was an unprincipled, opportunistic bully: a predictable product of big money in politics politics, whereas Paul represents a more malevolent strain of corporatist extremism. Christie simply wanted to expropriate the few remaining pockets of middle class wealth for his corporate sponsors, Paul's list of "associations" suggests a darker and far more sinister intent. It will be both fascinating and terrifying to see if and how the corporate media can convince the American middle class that it would be better off "picking cotton and singing songs."

[LibertyEagle]

It just makes you wonder how many of them are paid to comment on such articles.

[56ktarget]

Can anybody actually refute the article section by section, instead of just posting quotes? This article may or may not be a hit piece, but you don't help you argument by just posting quotes.

[AuH20]

Can anybody actually refute the article section by section, instead of just posting quotes? This article may or may not be a hit piece, but you don't help you argument by just posting quotes.

Those are actually reader comments. Not quotes. I should have stated that earlier.

[ravedown]

It just makes you wonder how many of them are paid to comment on such articles.
there are PR agencies that specialize in this practice, particularly on MSM sites. You can expect a fair % of the responses are paid political operative groups repeating dem. talking points and ad hominem attacks.

[matt0611]

Can anybody actually refute the article section by section, instead of just posting quotes? This article may or may not be a hit piece, but you don't help you argument by just posting quotes.

Oh please. The article doesn't actually make any arguments. Its mostly just repeats of:

"This guy that's associated with this institute that his father is associated with said this or that (with almost zero context) and oooh look how extreme that view is!".

:rolleyes:

[56ktarget]

Oh please. The article doesn't actually make any arguments. Its mostly just repeats of:

"This guy that's associated with this institute that his father is associated with said this or that (with almost zero context) and oooh look how extreme that view is!".

:rolleyes:

Isn't that exactly the type of guilt by association attacks that conservatives use to attack Obama (Ayers, Rev Wright, etc)?

[matt0611]

Isn't that exactly the type of guilt by association attacks that conservatives use to attack Obama (Ayers, Rev Wright, etc)?

Even if that is true so what? I'm responsible for what all "conservatives" say or something?

And are you really trying to compare a person's pastor that they listened to preach in their church for years, week after week, with a sentence fragment of something someone wrote in a book who teaches at his father's online home school course? :rolleyes:

[56ktarget]

Even if that is true so what? I'm responsible for what all "conservatives" say or something?

And are you really trying to compare a person's pastor that preached in their church for years week after week with something someone wrote in a book that teaches at his father's home school curriculum? :rolleyes:

Jack Hunter is a known racist who is a campaign manager to rand paul. Paul has so far refused to denounce him. Are you really trying to compare that to Obama, who has repeatedly denounced Wright many times? :rolleyes:

[matt0611]

Jack Hunter is a known racist who is a campaign manager to rand paul. Paul has so far refused to denounce him. Are you really trying to compare that to Obama, who has repeatedly denounced Wright many times? :rolleyes:

Jack Hunter isn't a racist. I've never heard him say or read anything he wrote that was racist.

[56ktarget]

What? He confessed he was racist in the past, look at this article he wrote:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/confessions-of-right-wing-shock-jock-jack-hunter-100261.html#.UuRt6RDTm00

I don't buy his half-assed apology myself.

[matt0611]

What? He confessed he was racist in the past, look at this article he wrote:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/confessions-of-right-wing-shock-jock-jack-hunter-100261.html#.UuRt6RDTm00

I don't buy his half-assed apology myself.

I still don't see anything he wrote or said that was overtly racist. He said he played one in the past and disavowed some of his previous beliefs or statements. And?...

I still don't see why Rand has to denounce him if he hasn't said anything offensive while he was working for him though.

[56ktarget]

You don't "play" at being a racist. If a video came out of Obama professing his support for Al Qaeda, and he got a ton of shit, would you believe his apology if it said he only "played" at being a terrorist?

[matt0611]

You don't "play" at being a racist. If a video came out of Obama professing his support for Al Qaeda, and he got a ton of shit, would you believe his apology if it said he only "played" at being a terrorist?

A President is different from a radio shock jock / DJ who worked for someone's campaign. Nice try with that comparison. But its a big fail.

And I also don't see why Rand should "denounce" someone who worked for his campaign who said things in the past that he himself disavows.

I never bought Obama's denouncing of Wright either, for the record.

[56ktarget]

A President is different from a radio shock jock / DJ. Nice try with that comparison. But its a big fail.

And I also don't see why Rand should "denounce" someone who worked for his campaign who said things in the past that he himself disavows.

I never bought Obama's denouncing of Wright either, for the record.

So why the hell would you buy Hunter's apology?

[matt0611]

So why the hell would you buy Hunter's apology?

Because I haven't seen him say or write anything that's remotely offensive in anything recent. That article is talking about things in 2003 and even earlier.

[56ktarget]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07/09/rand-paul-aide-has-history-of-racial-comments/

"Americans aren't wrong to deplore the millions of Mexicans coming here now," hewrote in 2007 (http://web.archive.org/web/20071104071254/http://www.southernavenger.com/82/?form_58.userid=4&form_58.replyids=397). "A non-white majority America would simply cease to be America for reasons that are as numerous as they are obvious – whether we are supposed to mention them or not."


That same year, discussing a racial disparity in school suspensions and expulsions, he wrote (http://web.archive.org/web/20071103012120/http://www.southernavenger.com/82/?form_58.userid=4&form_58.replyids=426), "there are probably more black youth who deserve to be expelled ... who never receive proper punishment out of fear of accusations of 'racism.'"


In 2004, he lamented (http://web.archive.org/web/20071104084926/http://www.southernavenger.com/82/?form_58.userid=4&form_58.replyids=84) a "racial double standard" that meant that "Not only are whites not afforded the same right to celebrate their own cultural identity – but anything that is considered 'too white' is immediately suspect."

Another 2004 post declares (http://web.archive.org/web/20071104065842/http://www.southernavenger.com/82/?form_58.userid=4&form_58.replyids=25) that "not only was Abraham Lincoln the worst President, but one of the worst figures in American history" while arguing that "John Wilkes Booth's heart was in the right place" when he assassinated the president.

[matt0611]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07/09/rand-paul-aide-has-history-of-racial-comments/

"Americans aren't wrong to deplore the millions of Mexicans coming here now," hewrote in 2007 (http://web.archive.org/web/20071104071254/http://www.southernavenger.com/82/?form_58.userid=4&form_58.replyids=397). "A non-white majority America would simply cease to be America for reasons that are as numerous as they are obvious – whether we are supposed to mention them or not."


That same year, discussing a racial disparity in school suspensions and expulsions, he wrote (http://web.archive.org/web/20071103012120/http://www.southernavenger.com/82/?form_58.userid=4&form_58.replyids=426), "there are probably more black youth who deserve to be expelled ... who never receive proper punishment out of fear of accusations of 'racism.'"


In 2004, he lamented (http://web.archive.org/web/20071104084926/http://www.southernavenger.com/82/?form_58.userid=4&form_58.replyids=84) a "racial double standard" that meant that "Not only are whites not afforded the same right to celebrate their own cultural identity – but anything that is considered 'too white' is immediately suspect."

Another 2004 post declares (http://web.archive.org/web/20071104065842/http://www.southernavenger.com/82/?form_58.userid=4&form_58.replyids=25) that "not only was Abraham Lincoln the worst President, but one of the worst figures in American history" while arguing that "John Wilkes Booth's heart was in the right place" when he assassinated the president.







I see nothing offensive there. I actually agree with most of that. And again, half of that is from a decade ago (2004) anyway.

[otherone]

"not only was Abraham Lincoln the worst President, but one of the worst figures in American history" while arguing that "John Wilkes Booth's heart was in the right place" when he assassinated the president.


How is this racist?

[56ktarget]

Three words: Dog whistle politics.

[brushfire]

More zombies, writing articles, in the NYT no less...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrcM5exDxcc

[otherone]

Three words: Dog whistle politics.

Was he a political figure when he made that statement? Am "I" a racist by voicing the same opinion? Is it possible to discuss state secession without being labeled a racist?

[Origanalist]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MBe23cjR1mA/UiQ7sXsaIoI/AAAAAAAADP0/qT0PQWQ6Iz4/s1600/John-Wilkes-Booth-Bobblehead5.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-A1qkPXWTJUo/TVjB_d5ATbI/AAAAAAAAATA/nZrD-xLc3KE/s1600/Lincoln_Statue.png

http://www.ultimateflags.com/images/P/obama-rebel-hope-flag.jpg

[Feeding the Abscess]

Rand's never visited the Mises Institute?

... really? That... seems odd.

[GunnyFreedom]

Was he a political figure when he made that statement? Am "I" a racist by voicing the same opinion? Is it possible to discuss state secession without being labeled a racist?

When people make this 'dog whistle' claim, they are saying that people are speaking in some kind of 'secret code' that only their followers can hear. :rolleyes: talk about conspiracy theorists rofl! :D

[Origanalist]

When people make this 'dog whistle' claim, they are saying that people are speaking in some kind of 'secret code' that only their followers can hear. :rolleyes: talk about conspiracy theorists rofl! :D

Is that why I can never see 56ktarget's posts?

[56ktarget]

You start out in 1954 by saying, "****** (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/******), ******, ******." By 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1955%E2%80%931968) ), you can't say "******" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_busing), states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******."

-Lee Atwater

[GunnyFreedom]

You start out in 1954 by saying, "****** (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/******), ******, ******." By 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1955%E2%80%931968) ), you can't say "******" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_busing), states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******."

-Lee Atwater




Whatever the heck you just said, you'll apparently have to take it up with this Lee Atwater, because I don't get it. :(

[56ktarget]

The censored part is the n-word
Lee atwater was an advisor of U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, chairman of the Republican National Committee, and one of the architects of the "Southern Strategy" that appealed to southern racists.

[Anti Federalist]

comments worse than the article. No sense even addressing people that stupid and obstinate about it. One guy claims he can't win the presidency because he wears a toupee. :rolleyes: Mind you I am certain that it won't matter at all to the nutter that Rand does not in fact wear a toupee.

Secession, please.

And I'm not being flippant or snarky...I'm serious.

There's no talking to people that think like the people in those comments.

Freedom and liberty, to them, is a musty old idea, best left dead and buried, entirely unsuitable and impractical for our modern go-go world and anybody who wants freedom is really nothing but a closet racist.

We can leave peaceably and separate, fight it out, or be swallowed up and destroyed.

[otherone]

Whatever the heck you just said, you'll apparently have to take it up with this Lee Atwater, because I don't get it. :(

Racism is the McCarthyism of the 21st century.

[56ktarget]

Lee atwater is saying the republican party actively tried to appeal to racists.

[otherone]

Freedom and liberty, to them, is a musty old idea, best left dead and buried, entirely unsuitable and impractical for our modern go-go world and anybody who wants freedom is really nothing but a closet racist.


Some people believe that we won't have a truly equal society until everyone's Rights are trampled on...

[AuH20]

You start out in 1954 by saying, "****** (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/******), ******, ******." By 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1955%E2%80%931968) ), you can't say "******" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_busing), states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******."

-Lee Atwater




http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/770072-i-ll-have-those-*******-voting-democratic-for-the-next-200


“I'll have those n%$%^&s voting Democratic for the next 200 years. [Touting his underlying intentions for the "Great Society" programs, LBJ confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One]”

[Origanalist]

Secession, please.

http://img.pandawhale.com/post-9764-Grumpy-Cat-clapping-gif-V3L6.gif

I'm about to the point where I'm not really into the "please" part anymore.

[GunnyFreedom]

The censored part is the n-word
Lee atwater was an advisor of U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, chairman of the Republican National Committee, and one of the architects of the "Southern Strategy" that appealed to southern racists.

You won't find very many fans of any of them around here. What to they have to do with us, or Rand Paul?

George Wallace was a Democrat, Governor of Alabama, and he sicced dogs and firehoses on anti-segregationist demonstrators. Should we liken you to George Wallace just because you are a Democrat?

[GunnyFreedom]

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/770072-i-ll-have-those-*******-voting-democratic-for-the-next-200

Aye, LBJ was a straight up monster, and one of the worst racists in modern times. But it's OK because he was a Democrat. :rolleyes:

[Saint Vitus]

lol @ that article, Rand has done nothing but distance himself from his father and libertarianism since he became senator, and yet he's going to be attacked like he's a carbon copy of him. That's why Rand's "strategy" is ultimately going to blow up in his face.

[Origanalist]

Aye, LBJ was a straight up monster, and one of the worst racists in modern times. But it's OK because he was a Democrat. :rolleyes:

Well, it was ok because he believed in big government. Big government can't be racist.

[angelatc]

Just for future reference, there is a site called www.DoNotLink.com .

It allows you to link to a page without driving up their page rank. Here is an article talking about how it works. It is more than just a URL shortener. http://skeptools.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/do-not-link-donotlink-ethically-criticize-seo-nofollow/

[Origanalist]

Just for future reference, there is a site called www.DoNotLink.com .

It allows you to link to a page without driving up their page rank. Here is an article talking about how it works. It is more than just a URL shortener. http://skeptools.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/do-not-link-donotlink-ethically-criticize-seo-nofollow/

Nice. You should put this in a thread of it's own.

[GunnyFreedom]

Instead of this alleged 'dog whistle' racism from Rand that supposedly nobody but Mr 56k can hear, how about legit overt racism from the woman he supports:

“I love this quote. It’s from Mahatma Gandhi. He ran a gas station down in St. Louis for a couple of years. Mr. Gandhi, do you still go to the gas station? A lot of wisdom comes out of that gas station” – Hillary Clinton http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1Mq8kOXV_E

"You f-ng Jew bastard!" - Hillary Clinton http://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jul/18/uselections2000.usa

[AuH20]

Well, it was ok because he believed in big government. Big government can't be racist.

[Let me channel LBJ and those elitists for a second]
Those minorities are too dumb to take care of themselves. They need big government and we need their votes.

[Origanalist]

http://www.softwarereality.com/soapbox/images/DogEars.jpg

[Occam's Banana]

Just for future reference, there is a site called www.DoNotLink.com (http://www.DoNotLink.com) .

It allows you to link to a page without driving up their page rank. Here is an article talking about how it works. It is more than just a URL shortener. http://skeptools.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/do-not-link-donotlink-ethically-criticize-seo-nofollow/


Nice. You should put this in a thread of it's own.

I agree. I'll definitely be using this from now on & I recommend that others do so as well. :cool:

[Lord Xar]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07/09/rand-paul-aide-has-history-of-racial-comments/

"Americans aren't wrong to deplore the millions of Mexicans coming here now," hewrote in 2007 (http://web.archive.org/web/20071104071254/http://www.southernavenger.com/82/?form_58.userid=4&form_58.replyids=397). "A non-white majority America would simply cease to be America for reasons that are as numerous as they are obvious – whether we are supposed to mention them or not."


That same year, discussing a racial disparity in school suspensions and expulsions, he wrote (http://web.archive.org/web/20071103012120/http://www.southernavenger.com/82/?form_58.userid=4&form_58.replyids=426), "there are probably more black youth who deserve to be expelled ... who never receive proper punishment out of fear of accusations of 'racism.'"


In 2004, he lamented (http://web.archive.org/web/20071104084926/http://www.southernavenger.com/82/?form_58.userid=4&form_58.replyids=84) a "racial double standard" that meant that "Not only are whites not afforded the same right to celebrate their own cultural identity – but anything that is considered 'too white' is immediately suspect."

Another 2004 post declares (http://web.archive.org/web/20071104065842/http://www.southernavenger.com/82/?form_58.userid=4&form_58.replyids=25) that "not only was Abraham Lincoln the worst President, but one of the worst figures in American history" while arguing that "John Wilkes Booth's heart was in the right place" when he assassinated the president.








Like others say, I see nothing here that is offensive or racist. Is a white man not allowed to voice an opinion? I share a lot of this same opinion too, and I have a biracial child with a black female. If he expanded on the victo'crat mentality breed into these subcultures by lib/dem/statist policies/progaganda, I think he would have made a bigger splash in truth and draw the correlation between that AND the possible trend towards a big government nanny state etc..

[fr33]

Lee atwater is saying the republican party actively tried to appeal to racists.

And many of them still are. That doesn't change the fact that Abe Lincoln was a tyrant and killed more Americans than Hitler.

[fr33]

Can't wait, can ya? Just think, then you can get all smug and say, "I told ya so". Whoopee!

That's pretty disingenuous of you. Understanding how the machine works is not the same as supporting that machine.

But it won't surprise me that if Rand doesn't get enough votes you'd blame the few people here for that. We've already seen klamath blaming us for Christie's reelection.

[Petar]

Liberty Eagle has a point. Lots of people here just wanna complain about Rand Paul all day long, and then the MSM goes and does the exact same thing, just like they did to Ron. Are you all absolutely sure that you are not inadvertently carrying their water? I'm sure that some of the perpetually negative voices are in fact paid to do just that.

[fr33]

Liberty Eagle has a point. Lots of people here just wanna complain about Rand Paul all day long, and then the MSM goes and does the exact same thing, just like they did to Ron. Are you all absolutely sure that you are not inadvertently carrying their water? I'm sure that some of the perpetually negative voices are in fact paid to do just that.

"Lots of people here"

What percentage would you say are complaining about Rand?

What percentage would you say people like LE will blame if Rand loses?

I'd say about maybe 5% of this forum is against him. The ironic thing about it is he's getting criticized by the NYT for the exact opposite reasons the 5% here criticize him for.

[Petar]

"Lots of people here"

What percentage would you say are complaining about Rand?

What percentage would you say people like LE will blame if Rand loses?

I'd say about maybe 5% of this forum. The ironic thing about it is he's getting criticized for the exact opposite reasons the 5% here criticize him for.

Let's just say that it seems to be a very vocal minority... Not sure why anyone who purports to love liberty would wanna carry water for the MSM though...

[fr33]

Hell, Rand is getting criticized because he's supported by Birchers. LE please shut up about your cold war Bircher stuff until after the election. What's good for the 9/11 truther is good for the Bircher.

[Petar]

Hell, Rand is getting criticized because he's supported by Birchers. LE please shut up about your cold war Bircher stuff until after the election. What's good for the 9/11 truther is good for the Bircher.

Even the JBS doesn't approach the level of political toxicity that us truthers do...

[Anti Federalist]

Liberty Eagle has a point. Lots of people here just wanna complain about Rand Paul all day long, and then the MSM goes and does the exact same thing, just like they did to Ron. Are you all absolutely sure that you are not inadvertently carrying their water? I'm sure that some of the perpetually negative voices are in fact paid to do just that.

Rand people tell me not to believe what he's saying, that it's just window dressing and what he has to say to appeal to the GOP "mainstream" and he doesn't really mean, it's just very clever maneuvering.

Well, that's called pandering, and it doesn't work...you end up pissing off everybody.

[Anti Federalist]

Even the JBS doesn't approach the level of political toxicity that us truthers do...

That was an equal opportunity smear.

There was something for everybody.

C'mon, have you all forgotten 2007? 2011?

The system is gonna smear every last one of us, no exceptions and no free passes for playing nice.

[Petar]

Rand people tell me not to believe what he's saying, that it's just window dressing and what he has to say to appeal to the GOP "mainstream" and he doesn't really mean, it's just very clever maneuvering.

Well, that's called pandering, and it doesn't work...you end up pissing off everybody.

Thing is that Rand is having way more success than his dad by possibly being a panderer... maybe the stars simply aligned in such a way that his dad would pave the way by being way more pure, and his son would then ride that wave as a launching pad to effect a lot of real political change utilizing a bit of pragmatism.. that's the way that I generally look at it... don't forget, even the founders made some serious compromises... I mean they were willing to accept the ownership of other human beings FFS... I think that a second US Revolution (hopefully bloodless) with Rand at the helm is going to represent another quantum leap forward for humanity... it's not like there anything remotely close to being better to even try at this point...

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

You start out in 1954 by saying, "****** (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/******), ******, ******." By 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1955%E2%80%931968) ), you can't say "******" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_busing), states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******."

-Lee Atwater





Ah, here you are.

WHAT DID I TELL YOU? Didn't I tell you to work on your trolling skills? DIDN'T I?

You claimed you wanted to rebut some posts, but never followed up with 3 of your own threads. You also gave yourself away in your second post. And now here you are trying to escape the Guest Forum. You suck at--well, everything so far.

Now you get your government-support-me ass in gear and work on some trolling skills. Don't come back until you can do it right. Or we're going to have a problem. A bad one.

[fr33]

Thing is that Rand is having way more success than his dad by possibly being a panderer... maybe the stars simply aligned in such a way that his dad would pave the way by being way more pure, and his son would then ride that wave as a launching pad to effect a lot of real political change utilizing a bit of pragmatism.. that's the way that I generally look at it... don't forget, even the founders made some serious compromises... I mean they were willing to accept the ownership of other human beings FFS... I think that a second US Revolution (hopefully bloodless) with Rand at the helm is going to represent another quantum leap forward for humanity... it's not like there anything remotely close to being better to even try at this point...

And I wish him luck. But this hit piece won't be the last. Recognize it as fact. We'll be hearing about daddy's newsletters, his "teabagger" supporters, other many types of supporters, and the "neo-confederate" southern avenger that worked for him from all of the MSM many times in the future. It's not like we're going to crawl into a hole and hope it doesn't happen. It's going to happen regardless.

[Petar]

And I wish him luck. But this hit piece won't be the last. Recognize it as fact. We'll be hearing about daddy's newsletters, his "teabagger" supporters, other many types of supporters, and the "neo-confederate" southern avenger that worked for him from all of the MSM many times in the future. It's not like we're going to crawl into a hole and hope it doesn't happen. It's going to happen regardless.

Of course it will happen, I'm just saying that we should not help carry their water. The benefit to Rand's approach is that he may actually be able to overcome their slander because of his own pragmatism.

[Matt Collins]

If you have read most of the comments, most of the commentators hail from Massachusetts, California, Oregon and Washington. Very revealing I may add. Which is why this article is irrelevant. It doesn't break any news, and it is only being read by people who would never for for Rand in a Republican primary anyway. The only people reading it are us who think it's idiotic, and flaming liberals in blue states that don't matter when it comes to electoral politics.

[T.hill]

Mr. Rothbard applauded the “right-wing populism” of David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan member who ran for governor of Louisiana, and ridiculed “multiculturalists,” lesbians and “the entire panoply of feminism, egalitarianism.” Some of these ideas found their way into Ron Paul newsletters that became an issue during his campaigns.

Several current Mises fellows and associates are regulars on the Ron Paul speaking circuit and affiliated with his home-schooling curriculum or foreign policy institute. Thomas E. Woods Jr. was a co-author of “Who Killed the Constitution?,” which denounced the Supreme Court decision desegregating schools, Brown v. Board of Education, as “a dizzying display of judicial imperialism.”

Walter Block, an economics professor at Loyola University in New Orleans who described slavery as “not so bad,” is also highly critical of the Civil Rights Act. “Woolworth’s had lunchroom counters, and no blacks were allowed,” he said in a telephone interview. “Did they have a right to do that? Yes, they did. No one is compelled to associate with people against their will.”


What's with them trying to indirectly tie him to white supremacy? Murray Rothbard and Walter Block were/are Jewish, doesn't really fit into the narrative they're trying to sell.

[dillo]

I take the hit pieces on Rand as a sign of fear. Which is a good thing, they wouldn't waste time with someone who wasn't a threat to their establishment.

[compromise]

Racism is the McCarthyism of the 21st century.

Joe McCarthy is a national hero.

[fr33]

Joe McCarthy is a national hero.

If alive today he'd be just like Peter King; promoting the NSA, Patriot Act, indefinite detainment, etc; for national security. I'd love for a McCarthyist to call me for testimonial. I'd tell him how worthless he is.

[Petar]

If alive today he'd be just like Peter King; promoting the NSA, Patriot Act, indefinite detainment, etc; for national security. I'd love for a McCarthyist to call me for testimonial. I'd tell him how worthless he is.

Here's a real hero of the era:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYCBfmIcHM

[LibertyEagle]

That's pretty disingenuous of you. Understanding how the machine works is not the same as supporting that machine.

But it won't surprise me that if Rand doesn't get enough votes you'd blame the few people here for that. We've already seen klamath blaming us for Christie's reelection.

To the extent that people here work against Rand, yes, they would be to blame. Right now, this site is most useful to the opposition. It is ripe with all kinds of interesting tidbits to use to harm liberty candidates. Let's just not fuel their engines; that's all I'm saying. Let us not be helpful to those trying to take down our guys.

[LibertyEagle]

If alive today he'd be just like Peter King; promoting the NSA, Patriot Act, indefinite detainment, etc; for national security. I'd love for a McCarthyist to call me for testimonial. I'd tell him how worthless he is.

Do you have any proof of that? Because I think you are wrong.

[LibertyEagle]

Hell, Rand is getting criticized because he's supported by Birchers. LE please shut up about your cold war Bircher stuff until after the election. What's good for the 9/11 truther is good for the Bircher.

lol. You're the one talking about them, fr33; not I.

[Bergie Bergeron]

5000 words profile in the New York Times


The libertarian faithful — antitax activists and war protesters, John Birch Society members and a smattering of “truthers” who suspect the government’s hand in the 2001 terrorist attacks — gathered last September, eager to see the rising star of their movement.

With top billing on the opening night of the Liberty Political Action Conference, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky told the audience at a Marriott in Virginia that a viable Republican Party must reach out to young people and minorities.

But not long after the applause died down, Mr. Paul was out the door. He skipped an address by his father, former Representative Ron Paul, as well as closing remarks by his own former Senate aide, an ex-radio host who had once celebrated Abraham Lincoln’s assassination and extolled white pride.

The senator was off to an exclusive resort on Mackinac Island, Mich., where he again talked about the future of the party. But this time he was in the company of Karl Rove and other power brokers, and his audience was of Republican stalwarts who were sizing up possible presidential candidates.
---

As Rand Paul test-markets a presidential candidacy and tries to broaden his appeal, he is also trying to take libertarianism, an ideology long on the fringes of American politics, into the mainstream. Midway through his freshman term, he has become a prominent voice in Washington’s biggest debates — on government surveillance, spending and Middle East policy.

In the months since he commanded national attention and bipartisan praise for his 13-hour filibuster against the Obama administration’s drone strike program, Mr. Paul has impressed Republican leaders with his staying power, in part because of the stumbles of potential rivals and despite some of his own.

“Senator Paul is a credible national candidate,” said Mitt Romney, who ran for president as the consummate insider in 2012. “He has tapped into the growing sentiment that government has become too large and too intrusive.” In an email, Mr. Romney added that the votes and dollars Mr. Paul would attract from his father’s supporters could help make him “a serious contender for the Republican nomination.”

But if Mr. Paul reaps the benefits of his father’s name and history, he also must contend with the burdens of that patrimony. And as he has become a politician in his own right and now tours the circuit of early primary states, Mr. Paul has been calibrating how fully he embraces some libertarian precepts.

“I want to be judged by who I am, not by a relationship,” Mr. Paul, a self-described libertarian Republican, said in an interview last week. “I have wanted to develop my own way, and my own, I guess, connections to other intellectual movements myself when I came to Washington.”

Coming of age in America’s first family of libertarianism — he calls his father, a three-time presidential aspirant, “my hero” — Rand Paul was steeped in a narrow, rightward strain of the ideology, according to interviews, documents, and a review of speeches, articles and books.

Some of its adherents have formulated provocative theories on race, class and American history, and routinely voice beliefs that go far beyond the antiwar, anti-big-government, pro-civil-liberties message of the broader movement that has attracted legions of college students, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and Tea Party activists.

That worldview, often called “paleolibertarianism,” emerges from the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Alabama, started with money raised by the senior Mr. Paul. It is named for the Austrian émigré who became an intellectual godfather of modern libertarian economic thinking, devoted to an unrestricted free market.

Some scholars affiliated with the Mises Institute have combined dark biblical prophecy with apocalyptic warnings that the nation is plunging toward economic collapse and cultural ruin. Others have championed the Confederacy. One economist, while faulting slavery because it was involuntary, suggested in an interview that the daily life of the enslaved was “not so bad — you pick cotton and sing songs.”

Mr. Paul says he abhors racism, has never visited the institute and should not have to answer for the more extreme views of all of those in the libertarian orbit.

“If you were to say to someone, ‘Well, you’re a conservative Republican or you are a Christian conservative Republican, does that mean that you think when the earthquake happened in Haiti that was God’s punishment for homosexuality?’ Well, no,” he said in an earlier interview. “It loses its sense of proportion if you have to go through and defend every single person about whom someone says is associated with you.”

Still, his 2011 book, “The Tea Party Goes to Washington,” praises some institute scholars, recommending their work and the institute website.

And he has sometimes touched on themes far from the mainstream. He has cautioned in the past of a plan to create a North American Union with a single currency for the United States, Mexico and Canada, and a stealth United Nations campaign to confiscate civilian handguns. He has repeatedly referred to the “tyranny” of the federal government.

Since becoming a national figure, Mr. Paul has generally stayed on safer ground. His denunciations of government intrusion on Americans’ privacy have been joined by lawmakers in both parties and have resonated with the public — though no other member of Congress as yet has joined him in his planned class-action suit against the National Security Agency.

He has renounced many of the isolationist tenets central to libertarianism, backed away from his longstanding objections to parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and teamed with members of the Congressional Black Caucus in calling for an easing of drug-sentencing laws. He recently unveiled a plan for investment in distressed inner cities.

Much of that is in keeping with the left-right alliance Mr. Paul promotes, an alternative to what he dismisses as a “mushy middle.” Such partnerships, he says, “include people who firmly do believe in the same things, that happen to serve in different parties.”

---
In recent months, potential rivals for leadership of the Republican Party have depicted him as an extremist. Before the recent investigations into political abuses by his administration, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey said Mr. Paul’s “strain of libertarianism” was “very dangerous.” And Senator Ted Cruz of Texas told donors in New York that in a national campaign Mr. Paul could not escape Ron Paul’s ideological history.

Mr. Paul is not the first political son encumbered by a father’s legacy, but his mantle is unusually heavy. He has been his father’s apprentice, aide, surrogate and, finally, successor. Side-by-side portraits of father and son adorn one wall in his Senate conference room.

“We both believe in limited government,” Mr. Paul said. “We believe in a strict, or originalist, interpretation of the Constitution. We both believe that foreign policy has been too overreaching.”

Still, he has seen the consequences of Ron Paul’s unwavering approach. “Unlike his father, he’s not interested in educating,” said John Samples, an analyst at the Cato Institute who knows both Pauls. “He’s interested in winning.”

If so, some libertarians wonder, how faithful will Rand Paul remain to the movement that nurtured him?

Ronnie, his older brother, said, “My dad stuck with, pretty much, ‘If it ain’t in the Constitution — boom’; pretty hard core, and that gave him 10 percent of the country that would die for him, absolutely.”

He predicted that his brother would cede ground where he must, but stay true to the grand cause. He “is willing to work with them a little bit on things that in his mind really aren’t important,” Ronnie Paul said. “But there’s no question he’s still trying to get to the same place.”

Apart From the Crowd

Mr. Paul, 51, stands out in the somber Beltway forest of dark suits. An ophthalmologist, he has the rumpled mien of a graduate student, with his unkempt graying curls, wrinkled khakis and floral ties. He sometimes pads onstage in sneakers, and aides cringed at images of him on a visit to Silicon Valley last spring wearing the black mock turtleneck he refuses to bury in a drawer. At 5-foot-7 or so, he will sometimes step in front of a lectern, lest he disappear behind the microphone as he talks about the evils of taxation or a Big Brother “surveillance state.”

Mr. Paul’s marathon filibuster in March instantly transformed him into a leader of a party seeking a fresh message, even as he found unlikely fans in the American Civil Liberties Union and Jon Stewart.

But tucked into Mr. Paul’s lengthy monologue — its 76,000 words would fill a 300-page manuscript — was another narrative, told in a sprinkling of obscure references. He cited the Posse Comitatus Law of 1878, which restricted the federal government’s use of the military to enforce laws in this country and is seen by libertarians as a vital barrier to totalitarianism; Lochner v. New York, a 1905 Supreme Court decision that struck down Progressive-era workplace regulations; and the theories of Lysander Spooner, a Massachusetts abolitionist who turned against the North in the Civil War, which he deplored as unjust aggression against the Confederacy.

These arcana drew little notice — except among dedicated libertarians, who took them as evidence of Mr. Paul’s solid mooring in a subset of ideological axioms. The Spooner reference, in particular, excited those attuned “to the dog whistles of anarchism,” said Brian Doherty, a libertarian writer. “In my particular community, that was a big, big day.”

The education of Rand Paul began in the movement’s political center in the mid-1970s: the kitchen table of his family’s ranch house in Lake Jackson, Tex., a suburb of Houston.

Ron Paul, an obstetrician who disliked Medicare and Medicaid and other government programs that he viewed as encroaching on personal freedom, was infuriated when Richard M. Nixon instituted wage and price controls and took the nation off the gold standard.

Mr. Paul ran for Congress in 1974 and lost to the Democratic incumbent. But it was the first of many occasions in which the house at 101 Blossom Street doubled as campaign headquarters, often drawing the libertarian movement’s philosophical vanguard and grass-roots supporters.

“There were always people there,” recalled Mary Jane Smith, who managed several of Mr. Paul’s campaigns. “There were books all over the place.” When the grown-ups gathered in the kitchen to plot election strategy or discuss political philosophy, Rand — then called Randy — hovered nearby, “always listening,” Ms. Smith said.
---
Ron Paul encouraged his children’s interest. “I’d come up with a question, and he would say ‘Here, read this book,’ or ‘Here’s a book that I started with when I was first asking those questions,’ ” Ronnie Paul said. “He would just feed us as we asked.”

There was plenty to absorb. Libertarianism had reached a critical stage.

Sketching the Outlines

Adherents often trace its roots back to the small-government ideals of Thomas Jefferson. The term libertarian — adopted by 19th-century European anarchists — would eventually become the movement associated today with the novels of Ayn Rand, the economics of Milton Friedman and the antitax campaigns of Grover Norquist, as well as quixotic causes like full legalization of drugs.

But during the tumult of the late 1960s, when many people rebelled against Washington and the two parties, a small band of intellectuals sketched the first outlines of the alliances Rand Paul has embraced.

One of those thinkers was Karl Hess, a former speechwriter for Senator Barry M. Goldwater, the Arizona conservative. “Libertarianism is the view that each man is the absolute owner of his life, to use and dispose of as he sees fit,” he wrote in Playboy magazine in 1969. Who needed politics and its two calcified parties, Mr. Hess argued, when citizens could govern themselves through “voluntary” association and cooperation?

This principle would reach fruition in the digital age, with its informal networks, entrepreneurial problem solving — and community of underground hackers.

Mr. Hess, who died in 1994, was ahead of many others in envisioning this brave new world. “Instead of learning how to make bombs,” he suggested in 1970, “revolutionaries should master computer programming,” the better to commit “clerical sabotage” against government “bureaucracy.” One of his disciples, Louis Rossetto Jr., would later start Wired magazine, the original bible of the Internet age.

If Mr. Hess was the movement’s visionary, its political strategist was Murray N. Rothbard, an economic historian at the Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute. Formerly a “hard-right” Republican, he, too, had been seeking to break the stranglehold of the two parties, which he argued had perpetuated an oppressive “warfare” and “welfare” state.

Together, they urged campus conservatives, many of whom opposed the Vietnam draft, to work with the left-wing Students for a Democratic Society. Out of this strange-bedfellows coupling came the Libertarian Party, which fielded its first candidates in 1972, though they drew little notice and few votes.

But when the left-right alliance came unglued over drug use and sexual freedom, Mr. Rothbard and others reoriented the movement back to the right.

It was then that Ron Paul emerged, offering a refreshing new face and voice. He was grounded in libertarian doctrine, but presented it as homespun common sense. Clean-cut (many libertarians had beards and long hair) and plain-spoken, he personified heartland values, with his small-town medical practice and his large family of honor students and sturdy athletes. Rand Paul and his two brothers starred on their high school swim team.

In 1976, Ron Paul made it to Congress. Alone among his siblings, Rand interned in his father’s Capitol Hill office during summer vacations. When Mr. Rothbard visited from New York, Rand chauffeured him to the airport. He also made the drive to work with his father and his chief of staff, Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr., a former book editor who had brought out new editions of Ludwig von Mises’ work.

“I got to hear all kinds of great conversations on the way to work about philosophy, politics, religion, you name it,” Rand recalled in 2009 as a guest on Mr. Rockwell’s online radio program.

Ron Paul’s brain trust also included Hans F. Sennholz, a professor at Grove City College, a Christian college in Pennsylvania, and columnist for American Opinion, the showcase publication of the John Birch Society. Gary North, a Paul aide, was a proponent of “Christian Reconstructionism,” the Bible-based political ideology that propelled Michele Bachmann into politics. This blend of economic and religious themes shaped Mr. Paul’s congressional agenda.

He introduced dead-end bills to abolish the Federal Reserve, eradicate the Department of Education, neuter the Environmental Protection Agency and curtail the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over abortion. Mr. Paul, who declined interview requests, occasionally found common cause with liberals, especially in opposing Cold War military spending.

Rand was engrossed in his own course of libertarian study: He received a set of Ayn Rand novels for his 17th birthday. And he followed the rock band Rush, some of whose lyrics had libertarian themes.

Gary L. Gardner Jr., a high school friend, said: “I remember even back then being on a swim team bus and a Rush song comes on. I think it was the song ‘Trees’ — and he said, ‘Man, listen to the words of this, you know those guys have got to be conservative.’ ”

“The Trees” tells the story of maples, overshadowed by tall oaks, that form a union to bring equality to the woods “by hatchet, ax and saw.”
---
Austria and the Old South

Rand Paul’s difficulty separating himself from harder-edge libertarianism was brought home last summer. The Washington Free Beacon, a website tied to hawkish conservatives, reported that one of his Senate aides, Jack Hunter, had a long trail of provocative statements — some made when he was a radio host calling himself “the Southern Avenger.”

A leader of the Charleston, S.C., chapter of the secessionist League of the South, Mr. Hunter had praised John Wilkes Booth. For two weeks, Mr. Paul stood by him amid news media attention, but finally let him go.

Why, some conservatives were asking, did the senator not act more swiftly? And why was Mr. Hunter — whose commentary Mr. Paul called “stupid” — even on his staff?

One explanation might be that Mr. Hunter, who was the official blogger in Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign and co-author of Rand Paul’s Tea Party book, was respected by some libertarians. Another might be that his hostility to Lincoln and the North was not so different from the views of close associates of the elder Mr. Paul, Mr. Rothbard and Mr. Rockwell. In 1982, they founded the Mises Institute.

Housed in a brick-and-limestone building near Auburn University’s football stadium, the institute is overseen by Mr. Rockwell, who declined to be interviewed. When a New York Times reporter requested a tour recently, Mr. Rockwell asked him to leave, saying he was “part of the regime.”

The institute sponsored lectures, seminars and conferences to promote the teachings of Mises and other “Austrian School” economists. But its offerings also range further afield. A conference this month in Houston — with Ron Paul as a speaker — included lecture topics like “Do We Live in a Police State?” and “American Fascism.”

Mr. Rockwell and Mr. Rothbard, both Northerners, became sympathetic to the Old South and its politics of states’ rights. Mr. Rockwell continues to praise the South’s resistance to civil rights legislation, while Mr. Rothbard, who died in 1995, promoted writings of Lysander Spooner — the anarchist mentioned in Rand Paul’s filibuster speech — that he said accurately assessed Lincoln’s war policy of “militarism, mass murder and centralized statism.”

They envisioned a libertarian alliance with “cultural and moral traditionalists” who shared a dislike for everything from environmentalism to postmodern art. Mr. Rothbard applauded the “right-wing populism” of David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan member who ran for governor of Louisiana, and ridiculed “multiculturalists,” lesbians and “the entire panoply of feminism, egalitarianism.” Some of these ideas found their way into Ron Paul newsletters that became an issue during his campaigns.

Both Pauls have disavowed such sentiments, though they have praised Mr. Rothbard’s writing on free-market economics. Rand Paul describes Mr. Rothbard in his first book as “a great influence on my thinking” when he was a young man.

Several current Mises fellows and associates are regulars on the Ron Paul speaking circuit and affiliated with his home-schooling curriculum or foreign policy institute. Thomas E. Woods Jr. was a co-author of “Who Killed the Constitution?,” which denounced the Supreme Court decision desegregating schools, Brown v. Board of Education, as “a dizzying display of judicial imperialism.”

Walter Block, an economics professor at Loyola University in New Orleans who described slavery as “not so bad,” is also highly critical of the Civil Rights Act. “Woolworth’s had lunchroom counters, and no blacks were allowed,” he said in a telephone interview. “Did they have a right to do that? Yes, they did. No one is compelled to associate with people against their will.”

Rand Paul has offered a similar critique. Such arguments derive from an economic precept embraced by many libertarians: Government should not impede the free flow of commerce or dictate the personal or business transactions of citizens.

The pantheon of libertarianism includes economists like Mises and Friedman and the novelist Rand; Mr. Hess, a former speechwriter for Senator Barry M. Goldwater; Mr. Rothbard, an economic historian and social thinker; Ron Paul, congressman, presidential aspirant, father and “hero”; and Rush, whose lyrics were infused with libertarian themes.

But the senator said last week that his libertarian principles do not stretch to “revisionism” about the Civil War or to disagreement about the Brown decision. In his 2011 autobiography, though, he endorses books by Mises scholars that make such arguments.

“I’m not saying they don’t write some good things,” Mr. Paul said in the interview. “I’m just saying I’m not associated with them.”‘

As for Mr. Hunter, his former aide, Mr. Paul said he had dismissed him because he “wanted to make sure that everyone in the public knew we were not associated with any of those ideas.” The senator said he had not been aware of “any of his writings.”

Mr. Hunter disavowed his Civil War views in an article for Politico last fall, though he also wrote, “Senator Paul had known that I used to wear a Confederate wrestling mask” as a radio host and “still sometimes used the Southern Avenger moniker.”

For some observers, the episode reinforced a belief that the senator’s early immersion in his father’s movement can make him tone deaf to how its more provocative theories can sound to outsiders.

“For a normal, politically astute person — regardless of political philosophy — you look at somebody’s résumé and you say, ‘Oh, you were the Southern Avenger who wrote things about how John Wilkes Booth didn’t go far enough,’ that would raise alarm bells,” said Bruce Bartlett, a former Ron Paul aide who worked for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

But of some libertarians, he said: “They spend so much time inside the bubble they forget everybody doesn’t share their commonly shared views.”

Political Groundwork

Rand Paul’s political persona emerged at Baylor University, soon after he arrived on campus in 1981. He headed the local chapter of the Young Conservatives of Texas, a group started by Stephen Munisteri, a former Ron Paul adviser and the current chairman of the Texas Republican Party.

“He impressed everybody with his go-getterness,” Mr. Munisteri recalled.

In addition to inviting politicians to give talks, the group assessed the performance of Texas state legislators, issuing a report card on their voting records. Raymond Hughes Dillard, an alumnus who was involved with the organization, remembered debating Mr. Paul on issues like drugs, gambling and prostitution, with Mr. Paul making the libertarian case that they were victimless crimes.

“It was clear that growing up he had much different discussions than most people did around the table,” recalled another former Young Conservatives member, Karen Guillory. “What your belief system was, clearly in his family, was a topic of frequent conversation.”

Like his father, Mr. Paul went to Duke Medical School — which accepted him after his junior year on the strength of his stellar Medical College Admission Test scores. But even with demanding course work, he plunged into his father’s 1988 Libertarian Party campaign for president.

On road trips, the two would hold nonstop debates, Ron striking purist positions on foreign policy and military interventions while Rand hewed closer to Republican orthodoxy. “They would have knock-down, drag-out fights,” said Eric Dondero, a Ron Paul aide.

“I’d be driving. Dad would be in the back fumbling with the map,” Mr. Dondero said. “And they’d go at it.”

Mr. Paul’s campaign drew less than 1 percent of the vote, and he retreated to his private practice in Lake Jackson. But Rand stayed active.
---
After the first President Bush reneged on his “read my lips” promise to resist tax increases, Mr. Paul, then 28, tapped into the resulting ferment, founding the North Carolina Taxpayers Union. “You’ve got the steam, the anger and the heat,” he told a citizens group in Fayetteville in 1991. “Now you’ve got to focus it.”

After moving with his wife, Kelley (she urged him to shorten his name to Rand), to Bowling Green, Ky., in 1993, he renewed his antitax crusade by forming Kentucky Taxpayers United.

The group was small but it gave Mr. Paul a perch on “Kentucky Tonight,” a debate program on the Lexington PBS station KET. A frequent panelist, he fluently advanced libertarian arguments. He equated Medicare with Soviet socialism and charged that critics of President George W. Bush’s proposal to create private Social Security accounts believed “Big Brother” should dictate personal investments since “we’re all too dumb to take care of ourselves.”

Local party leaders, if they noticed Mr. Paul, dismissed him.

“I never took the guy very seriously in his early days,” said Jim Skaggs, a former Warren County Republican Party chairman. “He was sort of a right-wing radical.”

Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign was a boon for his son. He sometimes stepped in for or warmed up crowds for his father, whose antiwar, anti-Wall-Street and anti-drug-war message resonated on campuses.

“The biggest thing I’ve learned from my dad is he’s had adoring crowds of 8,000 at Berkeley, and 6,000 at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University,” Rand Paul said in one of several interviews for this article. “That’s an amazing feat to have people coming out in one of the most liberal universities and one of the most conservative.”

In July 2009, when Kentucky’s junior senator, Jim Bunning, announced his retirement, Mr. Paul sprang forward, drawing on some of his father’s staff, his formula for online fund-raising and his grass-roots following. On the eve of his formal campaign announcement, Mr. Paul went on the program of the conspiracy-oriented, libertarian-leaning radio host Alex Jones.

At Mr. Jones’s urging, Mr. Paul promised to resist any overtures from the so-called Bilderberg Group — more than 100 movers and shakers in politics, industry and finance who meet each year for informal discussion. Mr. Jones claims the group is conspiring to create a unitary “world order.” Mr. Paul also warned against the creation of a North American Union, modeled on the European Union.

Mr. Paul sometimes got tangled in the nettles of his ideology. His noninterventionist foreign policy and opposition to foreign aid — upon which Israel relies — prompted a flood of donations from major Jewish and neoconservative groups to Trey Grayson, the Republican rival who had been backed by Senator Mitch McConnell, the state’s most powerful figure.

In a meeting with the editorial board of The Louisville Courier-Journal, Mr. Paul revisited the perceived sins of the Civil Rights Act. Next came a 20-minute grilling by Rachel Maddow, the MSNBC host, in which he tried to explain how the libertarian principle of voluntary association entitled businesses, but not the government, to practice bigotry.

Still, his calls for slashing the budget and eliminating the Department of Education and the Federal Reserve resonated with Tea Party followers. And his criticism of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the Patriot Act and detentions at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had broad appeal.

“We underestimated Rand’s ability as a political maneuverer,” Mr. Skaggs, the former local party chairman, said later.

Once Mr. Paul won the primary, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which had supported Mr. Grayson, sent a senior strategist to lend expertise and channel Beltway advice. The operative, Trygve Olson, seemed an unlikely choice. He had worked in Eastern Europe for the International Republican Institute, a State Department-funded organization that promotes democracy abroad — what Ron Paul denounced in Congress as harmful meddling.

Uneasy about venturing into the alien territory of the campaign headquarters, Mr. Olson surprised Mr. Paul at his ophthalmology office. Mr. Paul readily accepted the help. Among the recommendations: Accept debate coaching from a McConnell adviser, and cancel an imminent “Meet the Press” interview.

Mr. Paul’s victory in November was hailed by his father’s longtime followers. “The beginning of the end of the globalists is here,” Mr. Jones, the radio host, proclaimed.
---
As a rookie senator, Mr. Paul initially was perceived as an irritant, his goal not to legislate but to disrupt.

He proposed cutting the federal budget by five times as much as party leaders. He nearly caused the Patriot Act to expire by aggressively seeking changes before its reauthorization. And he tussled over detention policy with Senator John McCain of Arizona, who would later label Mr. Paul and like-minded Republicans, including Senator Cruz, “wacko birds.”

But Mr. Paul had already begun a subtle makeover. His second book, “Government Bullies,” published in 2012, does not mention the Mises Institute or its affiliated scholars. (The book proved embarrassing last fall when journalists discovered that it included plagiarized material, which Mr. Paul attributed to sloppiness.) He emphasized his support for Israel with a visit there last year and told a black audience that he had “never wavered” in support for the Civil Rights Act.

These shifts have alarmed some followers, as has Mr. Paul’s increasingly cordial relationship with Senator McConnell, whom he once depicted as the embodiment of the Republican establishment.

In recent months, Mr. Paul has dined with Karl Rove and the donors of the major Republican “super PAC,” American Crossroads. He also met with Rupert Murdoch, whose properties include Fox News and The Wall Street Journal.

Some foreign policy “realists,” who think the Republican Party should temper its approach, have praised Mr. Paul’s emphasis on diplomacy over belligerence. After hearing Mr. Paul make that case in a Washington speech this month, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said in a brief interview, “I was surprised and impressed.”

But plenty of conservatives remain wary. Michael Gerson, a speechwriter for the second President Bush, wrote in The Washington Post that Mr. Paul’s ideas on civil rights and America’s role overseas threaten to “demolish a century and a half of Republican political history.”

The Wall Street Journal editorial page, assailing him for defending Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked classified documents about the agency’s spying, said he was unsuitable as commander in chief. “As president, Mr. Paul couldn’t behave like some A.C.L.U. legal gadfly,” the editorial said.

Mr. Paul sometimes muses aloud about his prospects in 2016. “Imagine what a general election would be like it were myself and Hillary Clinton,” he said in an interview last June. Asserting that the Democrat would be more hawkish than the Republican, he added, “You’d totally turn topsy-turvy the whole political spectrum.”

Playing the Game

Rand Paul was a presence at the Liberty Political Action conference in September, a reunion of sorts for supporters of Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign, even though he barely flitted through.

“I want a tiny revolution,” said Dave Wahlstedt, from Minnesota, selling T-shirts that read, “Don’t Drone Me Bro!” At a booth nearby, Matt DeVries, from Iowa, complained about the growing infringements of traffic cameras and speed traps. Other tables were sponsored by the Young Americans for Liberty, an outgrowth of Ron Paul’s presidential bids.

“We exist to maintain the infrastructure to mobilize young people willing to work on a Rand Paul campaign,” Jeff Frazee, the organization’s leader and a former Ron Paul aide, said in an interview.

The speakers included a spokesman for the National Association for Gun Rights (formed in opposition to the National Rifle Association, which is seen as too accepting of gun-regulation laws); Bruce Fein, a lawyer who represented Mr. Snowden’s father (Rand and Ron Paul helped enlist him); Brian Bieron, an eBay executive (Rand is a champion of technology and the Internet); and Mr. Hunter, the former aide, who had served as a kind of master of ceremonies at the previous year’s conference but had a diminished role this time.

The night before the convention closed, Ron Paul took the stage to the whanging guitar opening of “Revolution” by the Beatles. He delighted the audience when he facetiously suggested, “Let’s repeal 1913,” the year the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment, which authorizes a federal income tax, were passed.

he crowd applauded again when Mr. Paul said, “People keep trying to drive wedges between me and Rand.”

Rand, of course, was long gone by then, meeting in Michigan with Republican Party functionaries and donors. But the libertarians at the Virginia conference were not troubled.

Rand is not Ron, was the consensus. Brent Conrad, a videographer from Duncansville, Pa., said: “Rand played the game to stay in the game.”

...
nytimes. com/2014/01/26/us/politics/rand-pauls-mixed-inheritance.htm

Interesting stuff in there for a hit piece even though the authors are trying to smear him by association most of the time. There's a few nuggets hidden between the smear.

[Bergie Bergeron]

Here's a little something for the haters:

If so, some libertarians wonder, how faithful will Rand Paul remain to the movement that nurtured him?

Ronnie, his older brother, said, “My dad stuck with, pretty much, ‘If it ain’t in the Constitution — boom’; pretty hard core, and that gave him 10 percent of the country that would die for him, absolutely.”

He predicted that his brother would cede ground where he must, but stay true to the grand cause. He “is willing to work with them a little bit on things that in his mind really aren’t important,” Ronnie Paul said. “But there’s no question he’s still trying to get to the same place.”

[LibertyEagle]

If it is a hit piece, break the link!!

[tod evans]

If it is a hit piece, break the link!!

I don't click links regardless.

[LibertyEagle]

I don't click links regardless.

Yeah, but google picks them up anyway unless the link is broken.

[Bergie Bergeron]

Just saw that it was posted in General Politics: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?442351-Sickening-Hit-Piece-on-Rand-Paul-Published-in-NY-Times

You can close this one if you want. Even though the other one is turning into a slavery debate..

[tod evans]

Yeah, but google picks them up anyway unless the link is broken.

Does that help unfriendly sites?

I ask 'cause it's not a problem to withhold links from articles I post..

[Rocco]

This is a hit piece.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Meh, being attacked in the New York Times only benefits a Republican's 'street cred'. You think conservatives care what they say about Paul, Cruz or Palin?

[Bergie Bergeron]

Meh, being attacked in the New York Times only benefits a Republican's 'street cred'. You think conservatives care what they say about Paul, Cruz or Palin?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-pGwEWQFsA

[Warlord]

Did they ever do a profile on Obama and all the clowns associated with him? I dont think so.

[Warlord]

Btw I love how Rockwell told them to get lost lol :)

[klamath]

Lee atwater is saying the republican party actively tried to appeal to racists.Well if you want to go back in history the democratic party was the party of the confederacy and the party that elected progressive president FDR that interned 200,000 Japanese americans. The progressive democrats ARE the ones who start wars more wars while republicans talk tough but have an actual record of not starting wars at the scale of democrats.
Actions speak louder than words Mr progressive.

[klamath]

Oh well after reading what this thread has turned into I guess Mr progressive accomplished his mission. Get them fighting whether Lincoln orJohn wilkes Booth was better for all the world to see.:rolleyes:

[Madison320]

My thinking is that any current political predictions for the 2016 election are meaningless because I think by then the dollar will have crashed.

[otherone]

Joe McCarthy is a national hero.

You've missed the point.
From wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism)...
McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism."

This isn't about Joe. It's about pulling the race card to quell dissent...which is why I opined that "Racism is the McCarthyism of the 21st century."

[jct74]

split thread for Lincoln discussion:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?442407-Lincoln-discussion-split-thread

[goRPaul]

Rand Paul is a credible national candidate.

I'm keeping this at the ready in case a rank-and-file Republican calls Rand an extremist.

[jct74]

front page of today's New York Times


http://webmedia.newseum.org/newseum-multimedia/dfp/jpg26/lg/NY_NYT.jpg

[AuH20]

If alive today he'd be just like Peter King; promoting the NSA, Patriot Act, indefinite detainment, etc; for national security. I'd love for a McCarthyist to call me for testimonial. I'd tell him how worthless he is.

Not after what Eustace Mullins told him. McCarthy was one of the good guys. Even Jack Kennedy was on the same page as him.


Eustace Mullins said that McCarthy was fine so long as he stuck with his anti-communist agenda.
Mullins says in 'a writ for martyrs' that he (Mullins) wrote a speech for McCarthy detailing the Jewish bankers who were financing the communist.

McCarthy delivered the speech in Washington. This is when Bernard Baruch called McCarthy into his office and laid down the law. No more talking about who was financing the communists. This was the end of McCarthy. Mullins was working on a bio that would restore Joe McCarthy's image as hero/patriot before he died.

[Warlord]

That's a good picture and on the front page. Not such a bad hit piece .

[Todd]

You don't "play" at being a racist. If a video came out of Obama professing his support for Al Qaeda, and he got a ton of shit, would you believe his apology if it said he only "played" at being a terrorist?

Do you think Obama is a racist?

[Matt Collins]

What's with them trying to indirectly tie him to white supremacy? Murray Rothbard and Walter Block were/are Jewish, doesn't really fit into the narrative they're trying to sell.Aw, come on now, don't let logic and facts get in the way of good propaganda!

[Brian4Liberty]

front page of today's New York Times


Notice the not so subtle placement of a story right below. An attempt at forming a subconscious transfer or association. Subliminal messaging.

Trotsky, Goebbels and Bernays would be proud.

[Anti Federalist]

Notice the not so subtle placement of a story right below. An attempt at forming a subconscious transfer or association. Subliminal messaging.

Trotsky, Goebbels and Bernays would be proud.

Government propaganda organ is organing.

[Brett85]

The comments on Facebook on the Reason Magazine post of this interview are just ridiculous. Are all of the Reason Magazine people basically just liberals who don't like that label and would just prefer to call themselves libertarians? Because some of their main complaints against Rand are that he's pro choice on abortion and is a shill for corporations since he supports reducing government regulations.

[klamath]

That's pretty disingenuous of you. Understanding how the machine works is not the same as supporting that machine.

But it won't surprise me that if Rand doesn't get enough votes you'd blame the few people here for that. We've already seen klamath blaming us for Christie's reelection.
Bald faced lie but consider the source.

[Occam's Banana]

Does that help unfriendly sites?

I ask 'cause it's not a problem to withhold links from articles I post..

Yes, it does help them. When you have a working link to a web page, it will boost the "page rank" for that page - which will move that page up in search engine results. (And as LibertyEagle pointed out, it doesn't matter if anyone ever actually clicks the link or not.)

So people shouldn't just break links to hit pieces - they should also break (or remove) links to "bad stuff" that appears in the text of stories that they post, as well.

[Occam's Banana]

The comments on Facebook on the Reason Magazine post of this interview are just ridiculous. Are all of the Reason Magazine people basically just liberals who don't like that label and would just prefer to call themselves libertarians? Because some of their main complaints against Rand are that he's pro choice on abortion and is a shill for corporations since he supports reducing government regulations.

Commenting on Reason's facebook page doesn't make one a "Reason Magazine person." A lot of the people you are talking about are probably liberals who dislike Reason as much as they dislike Rand. (A lot of people "like" pages on Facebook just so they can post comments on those pages - not because they really "like" like the page.)

And unlike some outfits (such as Mark Levin's Facebook page), I doubt that Reason bothers to delete or block posts from people who disagree with them.

[fr33]

Bald faced lie but consider the source.

:rolleyes:


Obviously the libertarians are voting for Christy otherwise a Republican can't win:rolleyes: Libertarians obviously only vote for Neocon republicans but shun the GOP members that agree with them 90% of the time as compromising bastards.

[iamse7en]

Man, haven't visited RPF in awhile. After reading this article, had to get the reaction from smart people. I miss you guys. I'm sure I'll be back when I'm not so apathetic. God help us.

[iamse7en]

Lew Rockwell responds to the article over at Mises.org in brilliant fashion (http://mises.org/daily/6648/We-Win-the-NY-Times-Prize):


The New York Times, whistling past the financial graveyard, paused over the weekend to smear the Mises Institute, Ron Paul, our other scholars, hardcore libertarianism, and me. Why? Because our ideas and our youth movement are gaining real traction. It is in effect a compliment. They have never faced opposition like ours before, and Ron Paul’s tremendous resonance with young people has only made things worse from the Times’s point of view.

The Times wants opponents who play the game, who accept the presuppositions of the regime, and who are willing to confine themselves to the narrow range of debate to which the Times would prefer to confine the American people.

The purpose of articles like the one over the weekend, it should be unnecessary to point out, is not to shed light. It is to demonize and destroy a school of thought that the regime considers threatening.

The article, for instance, notes that Ron spoke on the topic “Do We Live in a Police State?” earlier this month at a Mises Institute event, and that another speaker (me) spoke on “American Fascism.” The lecture titles are evidently supposed to be self-refuting, although you can listen to Ron’s remarks and read mine and decide for yourself. It’s little wonder that the Times would want to ridicule the idea that American society could resemble a police state, given that paper’s cover-ups of the regime’s surveillance of American citizens.

The rest of the article is an attempt to distort the philosophy of libertarianism and to demonize Ron and other prominent exponents of that philosophy.

The whole exercise reminds me of the time, not long ago, in which a state-endorsed hate group took a swipe at Murray Rothbard (1926-1995), known in his day as Mr. Libertarian. The writer summarized Murray’s career in a single sentence about — of all things — lesbians during the Progressive Era.

Now consider: Rothbard’s 1,000-page treatise Man, Economy, and State was an extraordinary contribution to the field of economics; his two-volume history of economic thought has been praised by scholars across the board; his study of the Panic of 1819, published by Columbia University Press, received rave reviews in the scholarly journals and is still considered definitive; his Ethics of Liberty is a philosophical defense of self-ownership and the nonaggression principle, and so on.

“And so on” hardly does Rothbard justice: we haven’t mentioned his textbook on money and banking, his classic What Has Government Done to Our Money?, his four-volume history of colonial America, the scholarly journals he edited, the voluminous correspondence he kept up with the major thinkers of his day, and — well, and so on.

And a critic tried to reduce this man — this man! — to one unfavorable sentence.

It used to be easy to do this: how, apart from driving to the library, was someone to discover Rothbard for himself? But today, discovering Rothbard is just a click away. And once you discover him — his scholarship, his knowledge, the encouragement he gave to students, and his refusal to compromise his principles even when doing so would have meant career advancement — you understand why the state wants to minimize or demonize him. No wonder the most popular piece of libertarian apparel is our Rothbard “Enemy of the State” T-shirt.

Economics professors have even been known to urge their students not to read Rothbard. But what do you think the brighter students do when they’re told not to read someone? And once you read Rothbard, you never look at the world the same way again.

The Times article, which continues in the tradition of portraying Murray preposterously, tries the same tactic with libertarian historian Tom Woods. According to the Times, Tom’s book Who Killed the Constitution?, co-authored with Kevin Gutzman, “denounced the Supreme Court decision desegregating schools, Brown v. Board of Education, as ‘a dizzying display of judicial imperialism.’”

With even Publishers Weekly endorsing Who Killed the Constitution, there’s obviously something fishy here — would the staid and scrupulously establishment PW endorse a segregationist book?

In fact, Woods and Gutzman argue that the same result could have been achieved with the enforcement of the Fifteenth Amendment — and that that is precisely how, in practice, the schools wound up being desegregated anyway. As historian Michael Klarman shows in his book From Jim Crow to Civil Rights, the Court may have uttered a lot of pretty words, but desegregation occurred only after the Fifteenth Amendment was enforced. And had this constitutional approach been followed in the first place, the authors contend, American society would have been spared the precedent established in Brown whereby the justices decide on their preferred outcome in advance, and then tendentiously search for legal justifications for that outcome, no matter how implausible.

A handful of libertarians whose views are more congenial to the Times take opportunities like these to wag their fingers at the Mises Institute. Why, if we’d only play nice, and scrupulously observe every PC platitude as they do, reasonable people like The New York Times reporters would leave us alone. We just need to show The New York Times that a libertarian approach will do a better job of reaching our shared goals, etc.

Anyone deluded enough to believe such a thing understands nothing about the nature of the state and its media apologists.

Whose interests do you suppose the Times is more dedicated to advancing: those of the libertarian movement, or those of the state? The question answers itself. And so we might turn the accusation around: if you’re such a threat to the state, why does its media ignore or actually flatter you, perhaps even holding you up as a model for other libertarians to live by? If the Times wants you to represent the libertarian movement, do you think this is because it suddenly has the interests of libertarianism at heart?

Behind the state media’s attacks are always the issues of war and peace. Conservatives have deluded themselves into thinking that the so-called “liberal media” opposes the regime’s wars and wants to “abandon our troops.” To the contrary, you won’t find bigger and more consistent cheerleaders for the US government’s aggression than the official media. When they encounter a root-and-branch opponent of the warfare state, whether it’s Ron Paul or the Mises Institute, they pounce.

And when we oppose war, we don’t oppose it on the grounds that a particular conflict isn’t in “America’s interests.” That is regimespeak. We oppose the wars because they are based on lies, morally outrageous, and carried out through expropriation of the American public. You think the Times might not want a message like that gaining resonance?

The Mises Institute, moreover, does not issue policy reports to persuade the state that its interests will be more effectively met through libertarian solutions. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been flushed down the toilet in this way, and if you want to know how much it’s accomplished, take a look around you.

The Mises Institute’s scholarship, on the other hand, is aimed at understanding and overthrowing the entire paradigm of domination and exploitation that the state represents. No, we don’t play nice. We tell the unvarnished truth. It is this, and not anything else, that explains why the state’s media considers us an implacable foe.

Anyone is free to examine what we do: our annual scholarly conference, our student and topical conferences, the free books we’ve made available to the world, the vast library of audio and video files on both technical economics and popular topics, our Dailies, our regular Mises View commentary, and much more.

If you’re looking for efficiency experts for the state, who seek to devise better and more effective ways for state goals to be accomplished and the people to be expropriated, the Mises Institute will disappoint. If it’s “tax reform” you’re interested in — which is always a shell game in which the outward form of taxation may change a bit, but the amount of taxes collected stays the same or even rises – we’re not your cup of tea.

On the other hand, we have much to recommend us. We don’t back down and apologize when we’re smeared by the state’s media. We relish it as an indication that we’re doing our job. We tell the truth about the state: its wars, its expropriations, its militarized police, its propaganda. We don’t peddle the elementary-school propaganda that the state is a public-service institution seeking the public good. We believe that the great products of civilization — indeed civilization itself — are the result of spontaneous human cooperation. The parasitic class that holds the levers of power in the state apparatus may try to condition the public to believe that central planning and threats of violence — the hallmarks of the state — deserve credit for human progress, but our scholarship proves the opposite.

Ron Paul has been our Distinguished Counselor since we opened our doors in 1982, and he recently joined our board. The Times and the state hate us for the same reasons they hate Ron: we’re truth-tellers, we oppose Keynesianism and the Federal Reserve lock, stock, and barrel; and we support the cause of peace against the state’s wars. This is all too much for the state’s house organ, which has rarely heard war propaganda too preposterous to print, or a Keynesian apologetic too much of a stretch to repeat.

We are attacked because we are doing our job. The Times’s smear is a medal on our chest.

Note: The views expressed in Daily Articles on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. is chairman and CEO of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of Fascism versus Capitalism. Send him mail. See Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.'s article archives.

[twomp]

You don't "play" at being a racist. If a video came out of Obama professing his support for Al Qaeda, and he got a ton of shit, would you believe his apology if it said he only "played" at being a terrorist?

What if I told you Obama armed Al Qaeda in Syria. Would you consider that "support" for Al Qaeda?

[nbruno322]

Lew Rockwell's response to this hit piece.

"The New York Times, whistling past the financial graveyard, paused over the weekend to smear the Mises Institute, Ron Paul, our other scholars, hardcore libertarianism, and me. Why? Because our ideas and our youth movement are gaining real traction. It is in effect a compliment."

...continues

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/lew-rockwell/the-new-york-times-doesnt-like-me/

[jbauer]

And I wish him luck. But this hit piece won't be the last. Recognize it as fact. We'll be hearing about daddy's newsletters, his "teabagger" supporters, other many types of supporters, and the "neo-confederate" southern avenger that worked for him from all of the MSM many times in the future. It's not like we're going to crawl into a hole and hope it doesn't happen. It's going to happen regardless.

Rep+ Good grief guys, this isn't the first nor the last attempt at saying bad things about Rand. Heck 95% of the article is talking about other people and trying to connect it back to Rand somehow. Be happy they're playing this card this early. It gives us time to work on it and prepare for the real onslaught coming in 15/16.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Blah blah blah. That article is sooooo bad. It tries to drum up every boogey man possible to paint libertarians as a bunch of a crazy white doomsday preppers wearing "Vote for David Duke" shirts. Articles like that arent even worth a response. In fact, I love it because it means they are scared.

[cajuncocoa]

Blah blah blah. That article is sooooo bad. It tries to drum up every boogey man possible to paint libertarians as a bunch of a crazy white doomsday preppers wearing "Vote for David Duke" shirts. Articles like that arent even worth a response. In fact, I love it because it means they are scared.
That's how I see it too. The average NYTimes reader wasn't likely to vote for Rand anyway....uber-Progressives.

[rpfocus]

Blah blah blah. That article is sooooo bad. It tries to drum up every boogey man possible to paint libertarians as a bunch of a crazy white doomsday preppers wearing "Vote for David Duke" shirts. Articles like that arent even worth a response. In fact, I love it because it means they are scared.

Says the guy whose avatar is Obama wearing gold chains and throwing up signs. You and your ilk are the ones who ensure this movement doesn't advance.

[jbauer]

Says the guy whose avatar is Obama wearing gold chains and throwing up signs. You and your ilk are the ones who ensure this movement doesn't advance.

Ah the success of the article. Get supporters to turn on each other.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Says the guy whose avatar is Obama wearing gold chains and throwing up signs. You and your ilk are the ones who ensure this movement doesn't advance.


LOL, I actually snatched the avi from a big Obama supporter years ago. Thought it was funny at the time. If you dont have a sense of humor I feel sorry for ya.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Ah the success of the article. Get supporters to turn on each other.


Yep. Fact is, there are so many different "types" of libertarians. Alex Jones types, Ron Paul constitutionalists, Anarchists, Academics like Woods, Rothbard, etc, soft libertarians like the Reason folks, or CATO, there are some with very questionionable social views like JBS, the kids who just want to legalize weed, we are all over the place. Politics is all about trying to fit people into one group or under one umberella. That is just not possible with libertarians. The one common denominator is the belief in the principle of non-aggression, thats all I care about. Whether you hate Rand Paul or love him, whether you hate truthers, or you hang your confederate flag high just doesnt concern me.

Articles like this are from and for people that will never get libertarianism, so its pointless arguing with them.

People like RPFocus who want us all to talk and think one specific way so the idiots at the NYT wont think we are kooks need to realize that.

[rpfocus]

People like RPFocus who want us all to talk and think one specific way

LOL, that's what you got from my post? Completely idiotic, but not surprising. But hey, continue thinking you're helping the liberty movement with your "humor".

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

The comments on Facebook on the Reason Magazine post of this interview are just ridiculous. .

That's nothing, you should check out the commentary on the facebook pages of some of the Cato people. Total freakout.

BTW, Reason writer Brian Doherty, who was quoted in the piece, says he was interviewed for it six months ago!!! Obviously, this smear job has been in the planning stages for a ling time.

[klamath]

:rolleyes:Maybe you ought to brush up on the emoticons. What do you think the rolly eyes mean?

[limequat]

To those that find the article sickening...

Download it. Study it. Know it inside and out.

The old dying MSN tipped its hand, and the drivel contained therein is all we're gonna hear for the next 2 years. That gives us plenty of time to have quick pocket-sized responses locked and loaded.

Here's a few examples:

Brain dead NYT reader: Rand Paul is a r*cist!

Educated Rand Paul Supporter: Really, because I see him working to reduce mandatory sentencing and drug convictions, and reduce minorities' tax burdens. What's <fill in the blank liberal 2016 contender> doing to support minorities? Sending them to die in the middle east?

Brain dead NYT reader: Rand Paul is a c*rporate shill!
Educated Rand Paul Supporter: It's true that the Rand Paul budget calls for lower capital gains taxes for governments, but it also calls for lower taxes for individuals. High taxes increase the costs of goods and services for everyone and lower the standard of living for everyone. High costs impact the working poor the mosts, as they can't absorb costs increases like the rich can.

Brain dead NYT reader: Rand Paul is a tr*ther!
Educated Rand Paul Supporter:Bullshit, there is no evidence for that.

[belian78]

Says the guy whose avatar is Obama wearing gold chains and throwing up signs. You and your ilk are the ones who ensure this movement doesn't advance.
Yup, an internet avatar is CLEARLY the reason why folks don't understand young libertarians.

[KingNothing]

In defense of the NYT, Truthers are freaking horrendous and JBS is equally ridiculous.

[KingNothing]

The comments on Facebook on the Reason Magazine post of this interview are just ridiculous. Are all of the Reason Magazine people basically just liberals who don't like that label and would just prefer to call themselves libertarians? Because some of their main complaints against Rand are that he's pro choice on abortion and is a shill for corporations since he supports reducing government regulations.

Reason Magazine is the single greatest Libertarian enterprise in American history. There's no reason to rip it.

[green73]

Reason Magazine is the single greatest Libertarian enterprise in American history. There's no reason to rip it.

You're so on the ball with the subject that you still capitalize libertarian.

[Henry Rogue]

Maybe you ought to brush up on the emoticons. What do you think the rolly eyes mean?

The first time I used the roll eyes, I used it on someone's post I agreed with. I used it thinking the eyes were looking at the post I was agreeing with. That poster must of thought I was being sarcastic. Ha ha.


You're so on the ball with the subject that you still capitalize libertarian.

Early on, after joining RPF, I always capitalized libertarian as a sign of respect. It wasn't until reading many posts that realized that big L meant specifically a member of the Libertarian party and small L meant more of an ideology.

When I joined RPF, I was new to communicating on the web. It was a learning process.

[Occam's Banana]

Tom DiLorenzo comments on The Gray Whore's hit piece: http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/what-i-told-the-new-york-times/


What I Told the New York Times

The New York Times “reporter” (a.k.a. lying propagandist for the state) who authored the libelous smear against Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and the Mises Institute “interviewed” me several weeks ago by email. It was obvious that most of his questions came directly from the “beltwaytarians” who have been waging a hate campaign against us for years since I’d heard it all before. He obviously wanted to portray Rand Paul as a crazed “anarchist” who favored abolishing the government altogether (not that there’s anything wrong with that) since he kept asking me if Rand has ever read Lysander Spooner. I told him that it would not surprise me if Ron Paul had shared his education, including his readings of Spooner, with his children, but I had never met or communicated with Rand Paul. I also told him that if he listened to any of Ron’s speeches over the past 30 years, he would immediately learn that Ron is a limited-government constitutionalist, not an anarchist, and that in my opinion Rand Paul is a bit more of an interventionist than his father is. Neither is an anarchist, in other words. The “reporter” was obviously very disappointed with my responses and ignored them.

I also told the lying little jerk at the New York Times that my book, The Real Lincoln, is not a book about “the Civil War” in general, but about the real versus the fake Lincoln created by the Republican Party and its court historians over the past 149 years. I told him that criticizing Lincoln does not make one a defender of the Confederacy any more than criticizing FDR makes one a defender of Hitler. (I mention the Confederacy in one half of one page in The Real Lincoln). He ended up ignoring everything I said, did not quote anything I’ve ever written, and simply accused all of us as being “defenders of the Confederacy,” i.e., of slavery. As Lew has said, he was not interested in informing anyone about our scholarship, only libeling us.

As Bob Wenzel (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/robert-wenzel/in-defense-of-the-mises-institute/)points out in his article today, some of the usual suspects (the Reason/Cato/Koch Foundation/Beltwaytarian crowd) have responded to the New York Times smear by once again proving that their Number One Goal in Life is to be able to kiss the asses of the New York Times’ literary defenders of Stalin (http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/a-new-and-better-name-for-the-ny-times/), of the lies that led to the Iraq War, of Keynesianism, government spying, military imperialism, and an unlimited welfare state by supporting and agreeing with the smears on their own Web sites. They believe that that is the route to a more libertarian society, demonstrating yet again just how far their heads are implanted up their asses.

[Occam's Banana]

And more from Tom DiLorenzo: http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-biggest-lie/


The Biggest Lie ...

. . . told by the lying little twerp at the New York Times in his lame smear/libel of Ron and Rand Paul and the Mises Institute is his outrageous contention that the Mises Intitute espouses some kind of bizarre religious doctrine (un-named and unexplained by the twerp). I have been associated with the Mises Institute for about 30 years as a faculty member, lecturer, online educator, author, and donor. I have probably attended at least 90 percent of all the conferences sponsored by the Institute during that time period. I have been a daily reader of mises.org ever since the Web site was started. Never once have I heard or read of any kind of religious doctrine of any kind in any Mises Institute publication, speech, or other form of communication in the past 30 years. No such thing exists, as anyone who is familiar with the Mises Institute knows.

The most likely source of this particular slander is a mentally-unbalanced former Cato Institute vice president for international junketeering and gay bar hopping who has been repeating this nonsense for at least the past five years or so to whoever will listen to him. (When a central-European libertarian academic was asked why the Cato Institute sent this person to his country after the fall of communism, he said that his apparent “job” was to find out where all the gay bars were in his city). This is a person who fancies himself an academic even though he has never spent a single day of his life in an academic job and has never published a single article in a peer-reviewed academic journal, a minimal prerequisite for any real academic. Being such a loser and a phony, it is understandable that he would spend his time conniving with New York Times leftists to smear and slander others who have achieved far more influence and intellectual success.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

LOL, that's what you got from my post? Completely idiotic, but not surprising. But hey, continue thinking you're helping the liberty movement with your "humor".
How exactly am I hurting the liberty movement with my avi? You're a freaking joke dude.

[Occam's Banana]

Tom Woods: The Anti-Truth New York Times, and How to Deal With It

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V5GwxkanD4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V5GwxkanD4