Lew rockewell and his missrepresentation of Dr. Paul

[hasan]

Guys I just had a discussion with an Obama supporter who claims that Dr. Paul has anti 14th amendment views. He cited an article from lewrockwell.com, http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html, which I found to be a cut and paste of two and maybe even more articles of Dr. Paul. This seriously undermines lew rockwell's credibility and is a serious crime which even a first year journalist student would know better than to commit. The two articles from which he cut and paste are http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=317 and http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=593.

I am very disappointed with this behavior and gracious that supporters of Dr. Paul have setup www.ronpaullibrary.org. Otherwise there would have been no way for me to counter the person's misguided views.

Please give me your views on Dr. Paul and the 14th amendment. The Obama supporter says that Dr. Paul is anti 14th amendment when he argues that the federal government had no right to overturn the lawrence vs texas ruling. I countered it with Ron Paul's own quotations however I would like you view on this matter after reading the articles.

The grassroots should also spread the message that lew rockwell is misrepresenting Dr. Paul (mods please do not move this thread to another forum).

edit: mods please move this thread as you see fit. Really sorry once again. Lew Rockwell did no wrong and in fact did me a favor.

[Liberty Star]

I thought Lew rockewell had written a lot of great supportive articles about Dr. Paul. He is an ally.



(mods please do not move this thread to another forum).

Why not? LOL

[hasan]

i think this is important people. give me your thoughts.

[murrayrothbard]

Are you kidding?? That article on LRC is from August 2003. It says it is authored by RP. It is the exact text taken from RP's Texas Straight Talk. what's the problem? All Lew did was post it on his site, 4 years ago. :confused::confused:

[hasan]

I thought Lew rockewell had written a lot of great supportive articles about Dr. Paul. He is an ally.




Why not? LOL

why did he misrepresent Dr. Paul?

[0zzy]

It looks word for word?

[ctb619]

verbatim....what the heck are you talking about?

[adwads]

Ron Paul doesn't really support the 14th amemdment as it applies to incorporation of the bill of rights...

[hasan]

It looks word for word?

it isnt't word for word at all. the beginning of lew's article is from the first link while the middle bit about lawrence vs texas is from the 2nd article.

[murrayrothbard]

why did he misrepresent Dr. Paul?

That article was written by Ron Paul. What the heck does Lew Rockwell have to do with it?

[angrydragon]

It's word for word the same, what point are you talking about?

Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny was a speech Dr. Paul delivered in the House, the other was an article Dr.Paul wrote.

[MGreen]

I don't see what you're talking about. It looks like the LRC article is the Texas Straight Talk article Paul wrote that you linked to ( http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=317 ). I didn't see any copying/pasting from Paul's floor speech.

I also don't see the problem with the 14th amendment.

[0zzy]

I also don't think I agree with Paul on this. I think the 14th amendment helps, gays can have sex if they want too, don't think a state needs to be in the affairs of their business.

[murrayrothbard]

it isnt't word for word at all. the beginning of lew's article is from the first link while the middle bit about lawrence vs texas is from the 2nd article.

Learn to read. The article at LRC and the first link you gave to ronpaullibrary are the exact same article.

[adwads]

We've had a whole discussion about this already here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=59547

[Minuteman2008]

Why is there a problem with his views on the 14th amendment?

[hasan]

oh god. i think i made the biggest dumbass mistake of my life. sorry ppl iv been too stressed out to notice this even. really really sorry. damn now i have to apologize to the obama supporter.

[ctb619]

oh god. i think i made the biggest dumbass mistake of my life. sorry ppl iv been too stressed out to notice this even. really really sorry. damn now i have to apologize to the obama supporter.

no worries....I don't hate you anymore

[murrayrothbard]

oh god. i think i made the biggest dumbass mistake of my life. sorry ppl iv been too stressed out to notice this even. really really sorry. damn now i have to apologize to the obama supporter.

Lol....ok:confused:

[Ron Paul Fan]

I think you owe an apology to Lew Rockwell.

[rich34]

And also tell your buddy that Paul wants to do what the constitution gives us the authority to do just like proabition and that's repeal it. Nothing wrong with that so long as it's done correctly. Them people don't even understand the process so they really shouldn't even be talking about what they don't understand.

[hasan]

sorry guys il talk to the obama person. sorry lew for doubting your support.

[IHaveaDream]

This is why I'm trying so hard to get you guys to support some kind of activity for February 1, 2008. That is National Freedom Day and commemorates the 14th Ammendment. We need to send a strong message that the Ron Paul movement is not just a bunch of racists. Recognizing National Freedom Day in a significant way would allow us to launch a counterattack to that view.

I had already mentioned this date in two previous posts. Both were basically ignored. Then I mentioned in a third post that February 1 is Ron and Carol's wedding anniversary. That post was very well received.

Celebrate Feb. 1 to commemorate the end of slavery. Response: Nah.

Celebrate Feb. 1 to commemorate RP's wedding anniversary. Response: Great idea!

Are there a lot of racists here? Makes me wonder.

[ctb619]

Are there a lot of racists here? Makes me wonder.

Great attitude...imply that those who don't like your idea are racists

[IHaveaDream]

Actually, National Freedom Day commemorates the 13th (not the 14th) Ammendment. Point still stands, though.

[murrayrothbard]

Slavery still exists. Chattel slavery has been outlawed (private slavery) but public slavery is alive and well and growing every year (income tax, conscription, compulsory jury duty, etc.) What is there to celebrate?

[0zzy]

So, we'd still have segregated public institutions (schools) and ban on gay sex and yaddayadda yadda.

Could states pretty much ignore the Constitution if they wanted to?

I'm confused.

[hasan]

states can't ignore the constitution as long as they are part of the United States. The fact is that the state actually did no wrong LEGALLY by imposing private sex laws. This is because the law was voted on by representatives of the people and thus supposedly reflect their views. So the question here as I explained to my obama buddy is that of education. if people were educated on liberty they would elect pro liberty representatives who wouldn't setup up anti liberty laws. The federal government had no legal right to overturn the law however morally right it may seem

[Minuteman2008]

Great attitude...imply that those who don't like your idea are racists

LOL Yeah, that's right out of the Democrats' playbook.

[0zzy]

How can civil rights leaders like Dr. King be heroes to Paul if they influenced the Civil Rights Act which Dr. Paul opposes? Does Dr. Paul also believe that states should decide on segregation and the federal government shouldn't have done anything about it?

[hasan]

dr. paul believes in upholding the constitution which provides a clause for personal liberty. thus there should be no segregation if the states and the people uphold the constitution as they swear to. im not well versed on the civil rights act. i suggest you look up Dr. Paul's views on www.ronpaullibrary.org

[Dave Pedersen]

As I understand it, the net effect of the 14th amendment, rather than enhancing the status of former slaves lowered us all to the status of slaves.

[Revolution9]

As I understand it, the net effect of the 14th amendment, rather than enhancing the status of former slaves lowered us all to the status of slaves.

I understood it as removing ownership from the slaveholder to Washington DC and under federal protection and woe unto those who damage federal property.That went undercoveringly well so they just extended the priveleging of natural inherently unlicensable rights to the entire Union. So..it id not set anyone free but bound them by a legal stricture that is not found in natural organic law. The licensing of privelege to exercise your God given right to just bloody well live as you need to fulfill the path your maker set before you.

Civil rights are a scam to bind you with legal chains at your own pleasure. Sovereigns need no civil rights. They just need be civil.

Best Regards
Randy

[Bradley in DC]

Lew was Dr. Paul's Congressional office Chief of Staff back in the early days. They are still friends and allies.

We are skeptical, at best, of the 14th Amendment, yes.

[PaleoConservative]

The 14th Amendment as our current Court views it has done a ton of damage to your freedoms. A lot of the crappy federal laws over the years have been called "Constitutional" by the 14th amendment.

[Arek]

There's only one part of the 14th amendment Dr. Paul really wants to overturn and it's in section 1 of the 14th amendment, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and the state they reside in.

Pretty much what Ron wants to do is amend the amendment to state

All those born to citizens of the United States within the boundaries of the United States and those naturalized in the Untied States are citizens of the Untied States and the state they reside in.

By rewording it this way we do away with birth right citizenship for illegals.

[xao]

Wasn't it some LaRza douchebag who wrote the article recently about Tom Tancredo?
That a-hole should be shit-canned.