View Full Version : Ron Paul Roundup (12-26-07)

12-26-2007, 01:40 PM

Ron Paul Roundup (12-26-07)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=341424209&Mytoken=96CC832C-7115-4DB5-983622A91EAFABEF37823407)

Hello Freedomphiles! I hope your Christmas was excellent! Mine was a blast. I got a nice green and orange bomber flight that I've been wanting for about 15 years now, so I am totally stoked about that. My kid made a haul, and I spent Christmas night being a total dork and playing Guitar Hero with my friend Heist from the band Core Project.

There was a lot of Ron Paul stuff to go through, and I got rid of some of the redundant stuff so that I wouldn't spend the rest of my life writing today's Roundup. But rest assured, because everything worthy of your precious time and attention will be included.

Let's jump right in and look at the negatives. Virginia Heffernan (no relation to the King of Queens) wrote (http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/the-ron-paul-vid-lash/) a piece in the NYTimes which stretches the bounds of reality and possibly the space-time continuum to try and paint Paul as a racist:

Little Green Footballs, the hawkish and rigidly empiricist blog that first furnished evidence of memo-forging in the Rathergate case, has started due diligence, discovering that Paul has indeed dropped some cash at the theme-restaurant Tara Thai ("the first time I went here I didn't like my dish that much, but the second time I ate here the food was better," according to Yelp).

Paul has also officially spoken to the Robert A. Taft Club, a convocation known for its racist ties.

So maybe it was only a matter of time before Paul got roasted on his own spit, i.e., the Internet. Sinkers.org, known for Bush-bash mash-up and other satirical stuff, now has its own YouTube channel. An early post is a the-Internet-Hates-You-Ron-Paul video:


Now, that's just absurd. Centrist hero Grizzle Griz of The Nolan Chart responds (http://www.nolanchart.com/article701.html):

Given the excitement over the "extensive involvement" issue, one might expect to see more damning facts in White's post. Instead, Heffernan claims that Little Green Footballs made up for this lack by starting its "due diligence". If by "started", she means "not adequately completed", then she is right. The first sentence of Johnson's page reads "Take this one with a grain of salt, please" and it adds three links to "corroborating evidence". The links amount to nothing but an easy condemnation of White's claim.

Here is the real damning evidence against Heffernan's and The New York Times' integrity. It comes from American Thinker's three updates to its original smear, of all places. This is a mark of honesty on the part of the Thinker, so Lifson and the Thinker should get credit. The first update includes a quote and a link, which demonstrate that Bill White has a patchy history with the truth. The second update includes a link that disproves the Tara Thai-on-Wednesdays connection. The third is a quote from Peter Gemma, who ran the dinners. He claimed that he saw neither Paul nor White at any meetings. Unless it is an indictment to eat at a popular restaurant that a white supremacist may or may not have eaten at some other time, this whole discussion is hysterical. Thank you American Thinker for showing Heffernan what real due diligence looks like.

Being a student of a profession that uses the term 'due diligence' regularly, a few other legal terms come to my mind, like "libel". By ignoring Charles Johnson's admonition that Heffernan and others take the post with a grain of salt, I believe Heffernan has come dangerously close to committing libel. While she posts under the guise of disinterested observer, she observed more than she was entitled to. For instance she says, "Ron Paul…seems to have Nazi troubles, as in they're saying he's one of them." Heffernan replaced singular 'he' with plural "they", probably to compensate for a lack of emphasis. Only one white supremacist actually made this cl.. the discredited attention-mongerer. The second supremacist that she cited was Don Black, who explicitly said Paul is not "one of them". The scales of justice could tip on that alone.

Since Heffernan saw fit to post about Paul's 'extensive ties' to racism instead of his extensive abilities to raise more funds than any other Republican, I suppose I should explain that Paul is in a wonderful position to retain the most expensive libel lawyers on the planet.

Justin Riamondo also comments (http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/24/smearing-ron-paul/) on his site, Anti-War.com, about the video that Heffernan posted, and its creator:

This morning the New York Times took up this theme, with a vicious taunt coming out of the mouth of Virginia Heffernan, who repeats the laughable accusations of an admitted Nazi as indisputable fact. Paul "seems to have Nazi troubles, as in they're saying he's one of them," she gloats — and hails a "vid-lash" against Ron Paul. Yeah, the Paul supporters have so far dominated Youtube and the internet in general, where their movement was born, but we'll show them: Heffernan posts a video by one Mike Fluggenock, a shrill leftist propganda short that focuses not on Paul's positions but on two or three individuals in a crowd of some 5,000 at a rally in Philadelphia.

What's interesting about Senor Fluggenock, however, isn't his skills as a film-maker, or even as a propagandist, but the fact that he was one of six American "artists" to make contributions to Iranian President Ahmadinejad's Holocaust cartoon contest. Here it is.

Gee, I don't wonder that Fluggenock's entry didn't place. That is kind of heavy-handed, even for the Iranians. After all, is the evil of the Holocaust really equivalent to the admittedly brutal Israeli occupation? I haven't noticed the Israelis killing 6 million Palestinians in extermination chambers, but I'm sure this is just an oversight on my part. What I couldn't help noticing, however, is that Fluggenock travels in some of the same circles as Bill White, the neo-Nazi "Commander" and source of the charge that Paul is a secret "white nationalist. DC Indymedia, where Fluggenock is part of of the "editorial collective, seems to have it's own Nazi problem. DC Indymedia has also been promoting White's story. Hmmmmm …..

Riamondo also tackles in this column (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12102)the question of who the fuck is Bill White, anyway, and why should I care?

To begin with, who the heck is Bill White? Here's what the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith has to say about him: "Along with his media savvy," they aver, "White is known for spreading propaganda and lies about his perceived enemies." Go here for his extensive criminal record. White started his career as a dingbat of renown with the founding of the Utopian Anarchist Party when he was just a lad. The UAP's 15 minutes of fame occurred after the Columbine High School shootings, when White or one of his wacked-out confreres issued a statement praising the shooters. This guy loooooves attention, and he got plenty of it when, after his evolution into a Sieg-Heiling, uniform-wearing neo-Nazi, he published the addresses and home phone numbers of the Jena Six. His "career" as a major nut reached its zenith with his leadership in the National Socialist Movement, which at one time claimed to be the biggest collection of losers and criminal misfits since George Lincoln Rockwell and his gang first blighted this country with their presence. But that outfit blew apart, mostly on account of White's penchant for factional manipulation, and this effort to derail the Paul campaign is this would-be mini-Hitler's latest claim to fame.

Secondly, the man who organized the dinner meetings "Commander" White refers to, Peter Gemma, has this to say:

"I ran those dinners – Ron Paul was never there… If Bill White ever came to the meetings, he didn't use his real name – he doesn't even get the name of the restaurant correctly."

Damn, Heffernan got absolutely smoked by Justin and Griz. Well done! Maple Brown on USADaily commented (http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=209153) about neocon Bill Kristol's remarks regarding Ron Paul's interview on Meet the Press this last Sunday:

The Weekly Standard's and Fox News analyst, Bill Kristol, made desperate attacks against Republican frontrunner Ron Paul. Kristol calls Paul a 'Crackpot' and even questioned the Air Force veteran's patriotism.

The issue came up when Fox News interviewed Kristol about Paul's response to Tim Russert's questions on Meet the Press. Russert was digging up 20 year old quotes from Paul that had nothing to do with the election or Paul's current platform.

The quotes dealt with Ron Paul's statements in the past about the Civil War being avoidable and that there could have been a peaceful resolution to the conflict instead of the resulting 600,000 death toll of the war.

Kristol then misrepresented Paul's view on World War II saying that Paul didn't support World War II. Paul has said that he supported World War II because the U.S. was attacked by Japan and because Hitler declared war on the U. S. as well.

The LewRockwell.com blogs commented (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017993.html) on this:

There was a time when smears from a Bill Kristol or the New York Times could destroy someone, but that time is long gone. Today, Ron Paul supporters and potential supporters--and all young people--get their information from the internet, and not from a mouldering sheet like the Times, let alone a neocon talking head.

Today, the Times, which declines in circulation and influence every quarter, is taken seriously by the Manhattan and DC rich, period. When average Ron supporters hear that the NY Times has attacked him as a "Nazi," it makes them hate the Times, and see it as a pack of lies. And note that among regular Americans, the Times has no more status than the Wichita Bugle. "Wichita Bugle Attacks Ron Paul." If you saw such a story, you wouldn't think, Oh no, what has Ron done? You'd think, biased MSM! And inded that is the response of all Ron Paul revolutionaries to the libels.

Then we have the fact that no one under 30 reads a newspaper, and few under 60. And very few pay attention to a neocon like Bill Kristol or believe him. Few even know who he is. So if they should tune into Murdoch TV and see him calling Ron a "crackpot" and a "crank," and warning Americans not to pay any attention to him, it only diminishes Kristol. Or rather, it makes him disappear, as they turn the channel.

I noticed that Tim Russert was really digging into the past to try and trip up Ron Paul on Sunday. One thing that I found really amusing about the interview was when Russert got the gotcha game out and somehow implied that introducing a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship was a contradiction in Ron Paul's Constitutionalist ideology. As though a true Constitutionalist wouldn't support Constitutional remedies for change. By that standard, I guess Ron Paul would have to be against everything after the original document, starting with the Bill of Rights!

What a maroon! But here, check out the whole interview for yourself, in four parts:


It was a good interview, I'd say. I can't really blame Russert because he's one of the best at using people's own words and actions against them. Ron Paul is so consistent, though, Tim had a lot of work and more than a little stretching to do to try and get some tough questions for him.

Bennett Roth of The Houston Chronicle talks (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/5400303.html)about part of that interview concerning earmarks:

Presidential contender Ron Paul said Sunday that despite his philosophy of cutting government spending, he was justified in requesting funding for special projects, known as earmarks, for his Texas congressional district.

Paul, the libertarian-leaning GOP lawmaker from Lake Jackson, said on NBC's Meet the Press that he has requested earmarks "because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back."

"They steal our money," said Paul, during a heated exchange with the show's host, Tim Russert, who questioned whether he was being true to his convictions.

This year Paul requested 65 earmarks, more than any other congressman in the Houston area, including money for the renovation of an old movie theater in Edna and wild shrimp marketing.

I was actually a little disappointed with Ron Paul's response to this question. This isn't the first time this has been mentioned, and he should have been prepared to answer the question. He should have said something like, "Look, I vote against taking the money in the first place, but once they've got it, it's my responsability to try and get as much of it back as possible." Simple. Effective.

All Headline News highlights (http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009543011) another part of the interview:

Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Paul downplayed the chances of his continuing his White House bid as a Libertarian nominee just as he did in 1988, if he loses the nominating contests next year. Paul, however, also left room in case he changed his mind.

"I have no intention of doing that," Paul said when host Tim Russert asked him if he planned to run as an Independent.

"I deserve one wiggle now and then," the 71-year-old lawmaker conceded after Russert repeated the question.

Ron Paul cannot come out and say he will run as an independent or 3rd party candidate, because then primary voters will not take him seriously. I believe he has every intention of trying to gain the Republican nomination, but I think he's willing to run as an independent if that doesn't work out.

Aside from the Revolutionistas, if he could galvanize the 3rd parties, from the Independent Party to the Libertarians, Constitution Party, and Greens, he could build a wide coalition that might make him the most dangerous non-mainstream candidate since Perot.

IranMania also reported (http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=56579&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs)on part of the interview:

"The government of Israel encourages Americans to go into Iran," Paul said Sunday on MBC's Meet the Press.

The 10-term Texas lawmaker added that neoconservatives have also been pushing the administration into 'bombing Iran'.

When asked what he would do as the US president 'if Iran invaded Israel', Paul said the illusion of the Islamic Republic's attack on Israel is like saying, "Iran is about to invade Mars."

The 72-year-old politician made the remarks as Israeli officials are stepping up their war rhetoric against Tehran, over its nuclear program despite the recent reports confirming the peaceful nature of the country's activities.

Ron Paul also made it clear that he would cut the 'billions of dollars' in annual aid Washington provides for Israel if elected President.

All true, but it neglected to mention that Dr Paul would also end all foriegn aid to the Muslim countries, as well, which dwarfs the amount we send to Isreal. I did like the comparison Paul made in saying that they might as well say that Iran was going to attack Mars. Good stuff, and for me a highlight of the interview.

Remember the brouhaha over Dr Paul's comments on the Huckabee ad where he quoted Sinclair Lewis' assertion that when fascism comes to these United States, it will be draped in the flag and carrying a cross? Well, The Nolan Chart's centrist writer Grizzle Griz thinks (http://www.nolanchart.com/article716.html)the comparison was apt:

This is not an invention of Dr. Ron Paul. At the height of the cold war against communism, Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower used his Farewell Address to the Nation to warn Americans about the threat of corporatism. He cautioned that we must be vigilant against the growing power and undue influence of the military-industrial corporations on the U.S. government. We promptly dismissed him and now the military industrial complex is one of the largest, if not, the largest interest group in America. It has almost consumed the Republican Party with pocket-lining donations, so Ron Paul is a very rare exception. Perhaps he heeded Eisenhower or perhaps he is simply an astute observer of political theory in spite of political practice. Either way, the weight of historical evidence is with him.

There is no question that Americans suffer at the hands of corporatism. In this video, active duty servicemen stationed in Iraq explain how Halliburton has endangered their lives, exposed them to diseases, siphoned exorbitant amounts of money from taxpayers, and even took away the troops' rights to wash their own laundry. Many of us also remember Donald Rumsfeld's press conference in Iraq where he was confronted by one brave soldier who wanted to know why so much money was spent on corporatist functions in Iraq, while soldiers searched for armor in piles of scrap metal. One need not call corporatism and the attending suffering by the term 'fascism', but equivocating around it won't win the more meritorious argument.

Fascism can also be described as a coupling of right-wing ideology with progressivism. Progressives believe in expanding the powers of the federal government. Right-wing ideologues tend to parse behavioral norms along lines of right and wrong. So fascism can be described as an expansion of the federal government to enforce behavioral mandates. Old-school conservatives don't play this game, but neoconservatives have made efforts to mandate broad social norms upon the citizens of the United States. This probably culminated during George W. Bush's effort to bar same-sex marriages through the constitutional amendment process instead of the devolved federal process, an effort that Huckabee supported.

Lancaster Online is writing (http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/214144)about Ron Paul's grassroots support:

"They're an eclectic mix of people that on many things would not agree," said Franklin & Marshall College pundit Dr. G. Terry Madonna.

"Ron Paul really has brought a very diverse group of people together for a strong message of freedom," said Nicole Quinn, an assistant organizer for the Lancaster Meetup.com group.

"Although our various groups may have minor differences of opinions, we all share the main core principles of liberty."

Across party lines, across gender lines, across generational lines, the underdog candidacy of a limited-government crusader has energized the grass roots.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution is also writing (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/12/25/ronpaul_1226.html) about us:

That enthusiasm is as strong in Georgia as anywhere and his supporters here are flat determined to deliver the state for Paul when Republicans hold their primary Feb. 5.

Ike Hall, 40, Paul's Georgia campaign director and a radiation safety officer at Emory University Hospital, believes it will happen

"Yes, I do," Hall said. "Yes, I do. Mostly because of his phenomenally deep and diverse grassroots community. American politics hasn't seen anything like this."

The Paul grass-roots community is impressive. He owns the Internet, whether it's the more than 65,000 videos supporters have uploaded to YouTube, or the more than 50,000 "friends" Paul has on Facebook, the social networking site.

And The Morning Call is writing (http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-ron_paul-a.6198063dec24,0,1292322.story) about us, too:

Behind him are a varied group of supporters made up of libertarians, independents, Republicans and conservative Democrats. Some, like Sturzenacker, have been following the 10-term lawmaker since his last presidential run, in 1988. Others, including Philip Koury, were barely alive then. The 20-year-old Northampton Community College student has given $150 to the campaign. He said he planned to vote for the first time this year, something he doubts he would have bothered to do without Paul in the race.

''He doesn't really flip flop ever -- on anything,'' said Koury, who has joined Sturzenacker and a dozen or so other Paul supporters on recent Saturdays to wave Paul signs in the Lehigh Valley. ''He is honest and you can tell he's honest.''

He added: ''His message has gotten me involved.''

Libertarian writer Jaded speculates (http://www.nolanchart.com/article718.html) in The Nolan Chart what significance the Iowa Button Poll may have:

I have been wondering for a while how we could try to estimate real numbers. That is, how to tell how deep Paul's support is and whether, for example, these straw polls show a 50% turn out of Paul supporters and a 1% turn out for Huckabee, how to tell whether the Ron Paul movement has already flexed all its numerical muscle or whether it has silent legions of voters waiting in the wings.

Going through Google News, I ran across the Iowa Button Poll. Unscientific yes. But arguably, all the other polls have scientific flaws as well, so we might as well look at it. It is a walk-in, voluntary poll, just like the straw polls, so it could be open to the same skewing effect of Ron Paul supporters organizing and showing up in disproportionate numbers. But I don't think this happened because (A) a little time on Google hasn't yet turned up, at least that I have found, any appeal to Iowa Paulites to stock up on the buttons and (B) looking at its results it doesn't show the kind of Ron Paul placement that I suspect he would have had had the Paulites consciously organized. I mean, it's a button poll, not even Paulites think it's worth taking seriously. And that is precisely why we can take it seriously. Thus I suspect that the Button Poll, unscientific as it is, probably deserves at least as much attention as either the MSM's or the straw polls.

So what did the poll say? Well if you haven't already read, it places Paul in third place with 17%. This behind Huckabee (at 43%) and Romney (at 20%) but also well ahead of the rest of the pack (including McCain) who all pull 8% a piece.

And in Gather.com, "True American" writes (http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977210689&grpId=3659174697249252&nav=Groupspace) about why he thinks Ron Paul is going to surprise in the primaries:

1. The polls count on predictable behavior where only certain people (2004 George W Bush voters) are going to show up to vote. This means that a majority of Ron Paul's supporters (Independents, disgruntled Republicans, Libertarians, & Democrats) are not even included in these polls.

2. Ron Paul has been left out of a lot of the polls. He's been hidden as "6 for other" in many of them. There have even been reports that when people select Ron Paul that they've been dropped from the polling database.

3. The polls do not consider the strength of support. Most supporters of the so called "mainstream" candidates such as Rudy Giuliani & Mitt Romney don't really believe in their chosen candidate. They know deep down that their candidate is nothing special and just represents "politics as usual." They know that these people will say anything to be elected. They usually support their chosen candidate based on very superficial reasoning that can be knocked down easily by any sort of logical questioning.

a. These soft supporters could easily be convinced to support someone else (like Ron Paul.) This is particularly important in caucus states.

b. These soft supporters are not as likely to actually go out and vote. This is particularly important if there is bad weather on the day of a primary election.

4. The polls do not take into account that many of the primaries are open. An open primary means you do not have to be a Republican to vote. This means that all of Ron Paul's independent and Democrat supporters will be able to vote.

5. Many Democrats and independents have changed party affiliation to Republican to be able to vote for Ron Paul in closed primary states. Of course these people are not included in the polls.

USADaily is reporting (http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=208588) on the AOL Straw Poll:

An AOL straw poll that is supposed to be spam proof shows both Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul winning their respective primaries. The poll records national as well as state-by-state results. At the time of this report over 57,000 Republicans and 56,000 Democrats have voted in the poll...

...Nationwide Ron Paul is generating 26% of the vote, Giuliani is getting 18%, Huckabee 17%, and Romney is getting 15%, McCain has 14%, Thompson 9%, and Duncan Hunter has 1%.

In Iowa Ron Paul has 38% of the vote. The rest of the GOP candidates mirror media generated polls regarding strength in the state. Huckabee and Romney are tied at 19%. Thompson has 9%, McCain 7%, and Giuliani 7%, with Hunter at 1%.

In New Hampshire Paul has 30% Romney 23% McCain 20%, Giuliani 15%, Huckabee 8%, Thompson 3%, and Hunter 1%. Once again, aside from Paul the candidates mirror media polls regarding strength nationally and regionally.

Libertarian writer Scrappy Koala wonders (http://www.nolanchart.com/article717.html)on The Nolan Chart whether Ron Paul can save us:

So I ask again, can Ron Paul save us?

Let's start with the things that Ron Paul can do by himself. He can start by pulling us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. He can refuse to get us into anymore costly adventures. He can veto every pork filled bill he can get his hands on. Most importantly he can use the mouth piece of the office to return America to a place of respect and trust. He can reach out to the entire country to get us behind him to do the really tough things.

At this point the burden is off of him and on the rest of us. It's going to be impossible to turn this train wreck around unless the nation rallies behind him. And rally we must if we are fortunate to get the opportunity. For too long we have grown comfortable with assuming our responsibilities end in the voting booth. It won't end there even if Paul is elected. He will be fighting a machine that has been engaged in a blood lust frenzy of devouring the carcass for a long time.

In Havelock News, Corey Friedman says (http://www.havenews.com/articles/paul_3571___article.html/constitution_one.html)Ron Paul deserves a look:

The Founding Fathers weren't infallible. They were hypocrites — white slaveowners who proclaimed the equality of all men and household tyrants who wouldn't let women own land or vote.

The Constitution is a living document, and it should forever remain open to scrutiny and revision.

But, barring passage of new amendments, the Capitol Hill crowd shouldn't do anything it's not expressly authorized to do in the Constitution. That's Paul's political premise in a nutshell, and it's one that would reduce taxes, bring back the gold standard, eliminate undeclared wars and obliterate restrictive gun laws.

Maybe it's one that deserves our vote.

Yes, maybe. And finally, HappyNews.com is reporting (http://www.happynews.com/news/12242007/academics-join-endorse-congressman-paul.htm) on the academic coalition for Ron Paul:

In their announcement they wrote:

"Americans have lost faith in politicians, and for good reasons. Taxes, spending, and the national debt continue to rise, special interest bribes riddle the Congress, courts, and executive branch, and our schools are in shambles. Yet our government continues to wage a ceaseless assault on the American people's rights to make their own choices. It has done so through the USA Patriot Act, the REAL ID Act, the War on Drugs, McCain-Feingold, and countless other initiatives. The endless and inept foreign policy of interventionism of the establishment politicians has put our country in grave danger not only of a destructive war with Iran but a new financial crisis.

"The 2008 election thus comes at a critical time in the history of the United States and the world.

"We endorse Ron Paul for president because we believe he is the candidate best able to solve these profound problems. We come from a broad and diverse range of academic fields and specialties. We unite under the banner of liberty and are proud to announce our support for Ron Paul."

See the full announcement here (http://www.academicsforpaul.com/).


12-26-2007, 07:07 PM

Let's start with the things that Ron Paul can do by himself. He can start by pulling us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. He can refuse to get us into anymore costly adventures. He can veto every pork filled bill he can get his hands on. Most importantly he can use the mouth piece of the office to return America to a place of respect and trust. He can reach out to the entire country to get us behind him to do the really tough things.

He could also hold a news conference announcing to the world that "there is no law" and that our tax system is truly voluntary, and he will pardon anyone convicted of failing to file. Unless, of course, they produce the law!

Imagine the scramble! Imagine the dialog that would begin! What would the courts do? WOW

12-27-2007, 06:55 AM
Ahhh. You are the best my man!

12-27-2007, 09:17 AM
Ahhh. You are the best my man!