portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

economic justice | human & civil rights selection 2008

my basic Ron Paul hate letter

Ron Paul is first and foremost a wolf in sheep's clothing putting on a good anti Iraq occupation face while defending U.S. militarism in general .Paul seems ignorant of the fact that there is just another in that long linage of U.S. Salvadorian option dirty tricks going on in Iraq.

Far worse, Ron Paul talks as though 9/11 was a legit event. It wasn't. No planes were hijacked on 9-11-2001.And, no planes were flown into any buildings on 9-11-2001.The entire 19 Arab hijacker story is an absurd fairy tale.

The best two word description of Ron Paul is "Libertarian Looney". The second best two word description of Ron Paul is "economic anarchist".
Ron Paul is a mass hypnotist preying on lemming-like non-thinkers. He's Jim Jones. He's David Koresh. He's the Pied Piper.

There are people and there are resources. For certain, this is a mutual point of departure you and I can agree upon.

One of the core reasons groups or a population of people characterized by shared cultural or geographic bonds develop societies is to provide for their common good by their collective doling out of the blessings of the wealth and resources of the realm in which they live with some reasonable facsimile of egalitarianism.

This is one of several things libertarians and kindred non-thinkers such as Ron Paul don't seem to be able to understand. Government is the apparatus by which and through which that sharing and cooperating is brought about. The government is the people. It is the people promulgating this sharing and cooperating for common good. Government is the people working as in one accord for the common good of their society. There is nothing neither inherently good about small government nor inherently bad about big government.

Do we need to maintain and defend this lame-brained capitalist system in which only a few share the preponderance of the benefits of the resources of the land?? Rather , and to be more precise, do we move toward (revolution) a far more sensible sharing and cooperating modus operandi in which the people allocate those resources with a rational even-handed approach to assure that resources benefit all.

For crying out loud, these days in the U.S. year by year one trillion dollars migrates from the poorest 96 million households to the wealthiest 13 thousand households. With a 12.5 trillion dollar GNP ask yourself the question: how much longer can we hang on to this capitalist insanity? Our friend Ron Paul is only concerned with the well being of those wealthiest 13 thousand households, and if you understand his philosophy (he's an economic anarchist)-which you apparently don't- Paul's repugnant ideology proves just this. You've been duped. Ron Paul's presidential aspirations don't deserve your support or anyone else's. Paul's flapdoodle pro-military anti-proletarian stance on almost every issue only seeks to accelerate this already tsunami-like surge of wealth from the masses to the few, the rich, and the powerful.

Free market capitalism is madness and must be eliminated from the face of the earth. Free market capitalism is economic anarchy by definition .America and the world needs Marxist-Leninist-Maoist communist revolution.

Markets only benefit those who control them. A society does not survive (and ours is not) unless this control by the few of those markets is harnessed .All the things you're unjustly complaining about the government ignores the fact that government is a proxy of the people acting in cooperation and sharing in the people's quest to reign in the monopolizing of the benefits of the resources of the land by that aforementioned few, rich, and powerful. Without such a holding of sway, on the economic side of things ,we will not survive - period.

Every penny spent on national defense throughout our nation's entire history is fraudulent and farcical. Every bullet fired by the U.S. military throughout it's entire history is a fraud. All of history's U.S foreign aggression consists of pirating and racketeering purposed with stealing the resources of other nations following a season of demonizing lies against any head of state that isn't content with their nation's being a client state serving predatory global capitalism and criminal finance oligarchs.

All right, I feel you might want to ask 'what about the hallowed WWII'? Didn't we save the world from Hitler? Fact is that if the U.S. hadn't been enticed by Zionist to enter the First World War, there would not have even so much as been a WWII. We should blame Zionist influences, B'nai Brith, and the Rothshields for the Balfore connected underhanded under the table Zionist dealings that led to America's entering that European war now known as WWI. Germany and England were primed to end WWI under conditions equitable to both sides. The blatant unfairness of the Treaty of Versailles coupled with the fact that the Jewish bankers were conspiring to shrink the Deutsch Mark to oblivion set the stage. Brown Brothers Harriman, Fritz Thyssen, Samuel Prescott Bush (great grandfather of current U.S. President George W. Bush), the Rothshields -of course- and other western finance criminals helped fund the Third Reich into power. WWII was not a war involving the Allies vs. the Axis powers. Rather it was the Illuminati vs. the people of the earth with proletarian killing proletarian to the tune of 55 million deaths. Then comes Britton Woods and the U.S. perfidious Albion was born foreboding the death of the human species unless we somehow reverse this capitalist imperialist American Exceptionalist foolhardiness.

"The first casualty when war comes is truth". ~ Hiram W Johnson

"History is written by the winners". ~ Alex Haley

The U.S. has a friendly neighbor to the north, a friendly neighbor to the south, and vast oceans to the east and west. There is no justifiable reason for the United States of America to even have a standing army. In fact Jefferson and Madison urged early on that we not. They were ignored. All support of U.S. military aggression can be chalked up to ignorance, racism, xenophobia, and ignorant worship of the Golden Calf "City on a Hill" U.S. of A. myth paradigm.

Ron Paul: Not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"We should blame Zionist influences, B'nai Brith, and the Rothshields" 18.Oct.2007 14:58

anarchist economist

Doesn't anyone care anymore about this pure, unadulterated anti-Semitism?

For those who lack any knowledge of history and political theory, this writer is NOT a Marxist. The Hammerskins use similar "leftish" language in their literature. This guy is a neofascist con artist.

. 18.Oct.2007 15:22


For all you dislike (hate) Ron Paul, he would be a solid positive step forward compared to where we are now.

He wants to rescind the Patriot Act, stop government spying on citizens, do away with the Federal Reserve, and bring US troops home from the 130 countries we currently occupy.

Ron Paul-oholics is a Media induced Slander Word 18.Oct.2007 15:50

Not a Racist

"America and the world needs Marxist-Leninist-Maoist communist revolution."

Who gets to decide who lives and who dies in your revolution.
Indymedia... Please... Wake up... You pull Ron Paul postings but leave up this bloody revolution crap... We need to take back our media. Ron Paul may help unite Left and Right to this fact.

Pass these links on...

Poll manipulation, bogus slanderous claims, or blowing off the results

Ron Paul's economics are the absolute worst! 18.Oct.2007 16:20


While there is certainly a lot to like about Ron Paul, there are also somethings that should concern any progressive minded person.

Ron Paul is a proponent of the "free market" to cure all ills!
That even makes some of the Republican candidates look good.

Reihan: Is Ron Paul A Bad Libertarian?

Alex Massie leads me to wonder: Should libertarians think Paul is bad for the movement? After all, he comes from an anti-immigration right-populist tradition that sharply contradicts the cosmopolitanism that increasingly defines libertarianism. It's clear that Ron Paul is more Bob Taft or than he is a modern-day hipstertarian, which is part of his charm. David Weigel asked the right questions back in May: if Paul gets more attention in the next few weeks, that will also mean increased scrutiny. Will the resulting "revelations" about his decidedly unconventional views on the gold standard, etc., which Paul has made no effort to hide, undermine libertarians as they attempt to spread their intellectual influence leftward?

Whether or not the "liberaltarian" strategy is embraced by social-democratic liberals (verdict: unlikely), there are obvious reasons for libertarians to emphasize their dovish, culturally liberal side. The increasing willingness of libertarians to embrace tactical interventions (e.g., wage subsidies help shore up the legitimacy of the market economy, so let's use them) means that in theory they could become a free-floating answer to the German Free Democrats in their prime. That is an obviously attractive and not-impossible goal.

I don't know, I figure movement libertarians have in mind a very long-term strategy that only glancingly involves, say, the Republican presidential primary of 2008. The Paul campaign strikes me as a narrow phenomenon that mostly reflects a quirky, populist subculture (or Birchers and Buchananites) meeting an affluent, angry subculture (of anti-war non-movement libertarians). Paul is thus unlikely to do any lasting damage to the libertarian brand, and his candidacy will in all likelihood help the broader movement flourish. (By, among other things, introducing some non-trivial number of young people to new and appealing ideas.)

and he's anti-choice 18.Oct.2007 16:42


Quoted from Ron Paul:

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

 http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty /

Ron Paul is a right winger 18.Oct.2007 16:53

Check the numbers


Progressive Action Score: 10
A score of 10 means that Rep. Paul has acted to support 10% of a slate of progressive policies in the 110th Congress.

Right Wing Index Score: 17
A score of 17 means that Representative Paul has acted to support 17% of a slate of conservative, wrongheaded policies in the 110th Congress.

* Rep. Ron Paul failed to vote against the ironically named Protect America Act. The Protect America Act is a law now passed by both houses of Congress which replaces judicial warrants with executive prerogative and substitutes blank checks for reasons. The Protect America Act gives the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence the power to spy on your emails, your web surfing, your telephone calls and other electronic communications. All this is carried out without a warrant, which is required by the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

* H.Res. 68 is a bill that calls on President Bush to issue a report indicating the means by which the United States will meet its numerous, legally-binding treaty obligations. Asking the president to obey the law seems like a no-brainer, right? Well, not according to Representative Paul, who has failed to cosponsor this bill. When you get the chance, please contract Rep. Paul and ask what gives.

* Rep. Ron Paul failed to vote for H.R. 2, a bill to increase the minimum wage, which is currently at its lowest point since the 1950s. The bill was not dedicated to raising the the minimum wage to new highs. It would only have returned the minimum wage to a level comparable to that of the 1980s, which is in turn much lower than the minimum wage level of the late 1960s. It is a shame that Representative Paul does not even have the respect for America's workers that they deserved 20 years ago.

* H.R. 137 was a bill put before the Congress which declared it "unlawful for any person to knowingly sell, buy, transport, or deliver in interstate or foreign commerce a knife, a gaff, or any other sharp instrument attached, or designed or intended to be attached, to the leg of a bird for use in an animal fighting venture." In more brief terms, it outlawed the tools used solely for cockfighting, the ritual mutilation of birds for sport. H.R. 137 passed on a 368-39 vote, with the vast majority of members of Congress recognizing the needlessness of this particular brand of animal torture. But Ron Paul failed to cast a YES vote, showing a disturbing disregard for the unnecessary suffering of other living beings.

* Some bills really are no-brainers. In April 2006, the U.S. Senate ratified the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, which requires the emissions of some ozone-depleting greenhouse gases from oceangoing ships to be limited through regulation. H.R. 802 is a bill that would simply enact the changes necessary for the United States to live up to this treaty and reduce maritime pollution. What could be simpler and more sensible? But Rep. Paul stood in the way of the rule of law and sensible environmental progress by failing to vote for this bill.

* H.R. 2620, The Child Soldier Prevention Act, prohibits the government of the United States of America from providing military aid to any foreign government that uses child soldiers in its military, paramilitary forces, or other official or sanctioned armed groups. The Child Soldier Prevention Act also requires the Executive Branch to research and publish reports on the use of child soldiers around the world, providing important information that can be used to more effectively counter the use child soldiers.

There are some clauses that make the bill less strong than it could be. One gives the President of the United States to issue a waiver to the law when he decides that giving military aid to a government that uses child soldiers is in the interest of the United States. However, the President is required to register every such waiver, and report on the justifications for each waiver to the Senate and to the House of Representatives. Another clause permits support for armies that recruit volunteer child soldiers as young as 16 -- because that's what the U.S. Military currently does.

These clauses make the Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2007 an imperfect piece of legislation, but it's pretty darned good, and it's the only legislation to even address the issue. It is therefore a piece of legislation that all decent Americans ought to be willing to support, regardless of political party affiliation.

So why hasn't Representative Paul offered cosponsorship of even this mild, unobjectionable bill? Something seems askew with Representative Paul's priorities.

* H.R. 1415 is a bill before the House to repeal many of the most onerous features of the Military Commissions Act. If passed, some of its main acts would be to:
Restore the right of habeas corpus for people detained by the U.S.
Narrow the definition of the MCA term "unlawful enemy combatant" to individuals who directly participate in attacks against the United States.
Let United States detainees invoke the ethical codes of the Geneva Conventions again.
Let U.S. detainees obtain a civilian lawyer for their defense.
Prohibit the use of evidence garnered through torture.
Prohibit the use of hearsay, upon the discretion of a judge.
Let juries know how statements were obtained from detainees.
Permit federal appeals courts to review the decisions of military commissions.

In short, H.R. 1415 would restore respect for the Constitution and a modicum of humanity to the government of the United States. Sadly, Ron Paul has failed to recognize how important the restoration of constitutional standards are to our country. Perhaps Rep. Paul ought to review the congressional oath of office again.

Who Else? 18.Oct.2007 17:37

Still Waiting

Haven't heard one peep about who all the Ron Paul haters would rather us vote for. If you don't have a solution then you better try to find some middle ground. Mud slinging is easy. Building bridges is more of an art form.

Four years of a man who is tearing the Republican party apart and Showing us the Neo-con hijacking of America. Four years and if he falls through... The revolution or the next vote will be our recourse.

jail bush 18.Oct.2007 19:14

jail cheney

for all the problems with ron paul, he is lovable and has always been lovable. he is political art and like all libertarians he is primarily conceptual and not really doable. one can listen to him and say, yea! yea! then, Huh?! I think i would be ready to sacrifice the government programs (social security) that he would do away with to put an end to the federal reserve. that would basically put an end to the neocons. one correction, he may refer to the attacks on 9/11 but is considered a 9/11 truther as he has called for an independent investigation from the beginning. one thing he has is integrity and believability. there is not a single democratic candidate i would vote for over paul other than kucinich and if you line him up with the repugnanticans he stands miles above any. that deserves a lot. Hillary? Obama? Well, i guess Edwards but he aint no 9/11 truther. when i said (as he whisked past me) that he needed to talk about bushes role in 9/11 he looked at me as though he would have killed me if he could. integrity means nothing to any of the democraps. Paul does have integrity no matter how horrific some of his ideas are.

i will not be voting 18.Oct.2007 22:10

of course you won't silly!

because it is a sham, as we have clearly found in the last two elections. our "vote" is simply a formality to make us think that we have freedom, democracy, and all those nice words. since it's a lie, let's get to work on doing stuff that matters.

no more arguing over such things as who's the best. because we all know that the "best" candidate will not be the next president. time to stop dreaming and wake up...

A Ron Paul "Hater" 19.Oct.2007 16:22


"If you don't have a solution then you better try to find some middle ground. Mud slinging is easy. Building bridges is more of an art form."

What is this defense called? Straw man? Circular logic? Whatever it's called, I still love it! I could see how this might make sense if Ron Paul was actually a progressive, or part of the "movement" against the war, but he's not. But some very vocal people are proposing him as something he's not, proposing him as an anti-war candidate, a real challenge to the system. I happen to think that's a bunch of baloney, and I will keep challenging any such notion. I think I'm allowed to do that without telling you who to vote for. I do happen to think there's a halfway decent, progressive, anti-war candidate out there, but I'm not really about promoting them, or the whole electoral process (and like Dr. Paul, my candidate has no real chance of winning anyway). My suggestion for a "solution" has pretty much nothing to do with voting. It's about a building a truly progressive movement to stop imperialist war, spread the wealth (something you libertarians sure don't support), and fight racism and all forms of oppression.

But really, my favorite part of the above quote is the "middle ground", "bridge building" part. Ron Paul--with his home schooling, anti-immigrant, anti-choice agenda--is perhaps the least likely bridge builder out there.

I am not waiting for the Revolution. 19.Oct.2007 18:52

Troubles solution

Because the politicians in this century have not followed the traditional
policy of the Founding Fathers for avoiding foreign entanglements, America has
suffered the consequences. We can expect continued foreign military conflicts,
hostage crises, and terrorist attacks that solve nothing, while killing and maiming
innocent Americans and our draft-age youth, until a policy of nonintervention is once
again accepted as proper and wise."
Ron Paul "Freedom Under Siege" 1987

Troublemaker...I don't care if Ron Paul wins... I just want him to be in the race as long as possible...To get more Red State folks to open their eyes and see all the corporate media control and manipulation, and to cheer for a person who thinks Iraq was a mistake...a mistake we brought on ourselves. You can't tell me that isn't progress. Young educated college kids, silicon valley yuppies, red state red necks, and anti war progressives are all sharing one common vision... Dismantle the "military industrial complex"...

Two minutes of this video show what Paul thinks of the military industrial complex  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMfLo0fuQq0

I felt leaping rushes of joy as I watched Ron Paul and some of the Neo-con dipsticks battle it out. Rending the crowd in two. Stiring up the flock. And the longer Ron Paul stays around...And the more support he gets despite slander and hidden polls...The more people might wake up...and start unifying around common goals...

If "building a truly progressive movement to stop imperialist war, spread the wealth, and fight racism and all forms of oppression" is your goal "Troubledmaker" then you better start finding ways to pull more people into your movement to make it effective and enduring. Your goals sound great but I still don't see "progressives" taking to the streets in droves to demand change everyday... Shutting down mainstream media lies... Not in America anyway. And I don't see how peaceful protest will accomplish your goals with the level of media manipulation we allow in this country.
What if we could get a huge majority of peoplein America to agree on this one problem?
What if this is one of our chances?

A reply 20.Oct.2007 12:18


"You better start finding ways to pull more people into your movement to make it effective and enduring..."

Umm...I actually do something almost everyday to try to build the movement, I just don't try to do it with anti-immigrant shitheads like Ron Paul. I feel like I, and many others, have made this point about a million times, but none of you Ron Paul drones have addressed it. Why should we sign up with Ron Paul when we disagree with so much of his platform? Typical answer: because he's the only one who will stop the war, challenge the military-industrial complex, federal reserve, blah, blah, blah... How about you just answer the question: why should I support someone who I completely disagree with on immigration?