What concerns me about Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is not the man people pretend he is. I've had it with all the worship of a man who has a long trail of issues people tend to brush off.

Permalink Ron Paul’s racism and bigotry continues to be exposed all over twitter.

Ron Paul finished LAST!??

I seriously has no idea until now!

Keep failing asshole. LMAO!!!!!

Permalink moronpaul:


Ron Paul Was Implicated In Failed White Supremacist Island Invasion


In 1981, a lawyer tried to subpoena Ron Paul to testify in the trial of Don Black, a Grand Wizard for the Ku Klux Klan who would later go on to found the white supremacist, neo-Nazi website, Stormfront. Black was charged along with two other Klansmen with planning to violently overthrow the small Caribbean country of Dominica in what they called “Operation Red Dog.” While a judge refused to subpoena Paul, Don Black would come back to haunt him many years later.

In 1981 a group of American and Canadian white supremacists lead by Klansman and mercenary, Michael (Mike) Perdue planned on taking over a small West Indian country called Dominica by overthrowing the government and Prime Minister Eugenia Charles and restoring its previous prime minister, Patrick Johns into power. The group planned to create an Aryan paradise in Dominica and make money through casinos, cocaine and brothels.

On the day the group of white supremacists were supposed to travel to Dominica, they were arrested by ATF agents and were found with over thirty automatic weapons, shotguns, rifles, handguns, dynamite, ammunition, a confederate flag and a Nazi flag. The plan would be dubbed “The Bayou Of Pigs” after the failed invasion of Cuba.

The leader of the group, Michael Perdue, would plead guilty to planning the coup and turned state’s evidence. Perdue would testify that several other people helped organize and fund the coup and that two Texas politicians were aware of the plan. Among those Perdue implicated were infamous white supremacist, David Duke, former Texas Governor, John Connally and Congressman, Ron Paul whom he claimed knew about the plot. Connally was credited with helping Paul win his first congressional election.

Ron Paul with Stormfront founder Don Black in 2007.


Darren Hutchinson- Dear Washington Post: Ron Paul Is Not a Champion of Civil Liberty

Washington Post “factchecker” Josh Hicks gives Ron Paul high marks for consistency. Hicks claims that Paul’s proposals and voting record are 100 percent consistent with his political rhetoric. This conclusion, however, is woefully incorrect.

Ron Paul (along with his many fans) describes himself as a champion of civil liberties. Paul also embraces an extremely narrow conception of federal power. These two positions, however, do not always co-exist peacefully. Consequently, Paul has sponsored legislation that would imperil the very civil liberties he claims to endorse.

Consider for example Paul’s sponsorship of the We the People Act. This bill, if passed, would have dreadful consequences for the protection of civil liberties. The proposal would prohibit the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from deciding cases challenging state laws that implicate:

1. the free exercise or establishment of religion;

2. the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

3. the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.

The proposal would also prohibit the federal courts from issuing rulings that “interfere[] with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the states.” Also, the bill, if passed, would "negate[] as binding precedent on the state courts any federal court decision that relates to an issue removed from federal jurisdiction by this Act."

Let’s sort through the legalese. The bill would curtail civil liberties in several ways. First, it would remove all cases involving freedom of religion and the establishment of religion from the federal courts. This could harm liberty in a couple of ways. For example, if a state infringed an individual’s or church’s right to exercise religion, the federal courts could not intervene to redress the wrong. Only state courts could do so. On the other hand, if an individual claimed that the state had unlawfully subjected him or her to religious practice (say, by mandating that a student pray a Christian prayer in school or profess a belief in God), that individual could not pursue redress in the federal courts. Because states still violate these constitutional rights, Paul’s proposal would allow these practices to remain in place, unless state courts sided with plaintiffs.

The bill’s most dangerous provision would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction in right of privacy cases. The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution establishes a right of privacy. This is a great example of libertarianism. Unless individual behavior harms another person or the public, then the government needs a pressing reason for regulating it. Although the right of privacy protects individual liberty, Paul would keep the federal courts out of this important constitutional area.

As a consequence, federal courts could not decide the constitutionality of state laws that unlawfully regulate (or even prohibit) the use of contraception, restrict or ban abortion, or that deny marriage to same-sex couples. States could also ban adult consensual oral sex, anal sex, premarital sex and a host of other practices that fall within the right of privacy without any check from the federal courts.

Another interesting aspect of the We the People Act is the selective exclusion of issues from federal court review. Among the many subjects adjudicated in federal courts, Paul isolates the right of privacy and the religion clauses. In so doing, he is selecting constitutional provisions involved in progressive civil liberties cases with which the religious right vehemently disagrees. This is rather convenient, and hardly accidental, for a Republican candidate. Paul’s selective libertarianism would be a boon for social conservatives who deplore the exercise of individual liberty when it conflicts with their religious extremism. Paul has effectively sided with the religious right in a cultural war. This is not a libertarian outcome.

Furthermore, the portion of the bill that would negate the applicability of any precedent prohibited by the statute would mean the immediate demise of Roe v. Wade — a case that Paul the purported libertarian opposes. It would also mean that many other important Supreme Court rulings, such as cases protecting parental rights, family privacy, the right to marry, and the right to refuse medical treatment would suddenly lose all value as precedent in cases challenging state laws.

Moreover, the bill’s vague language that would prohibit federal courts from issuing any ruling that would interfere with the “legislative functions or administrative discretion of the states” could enable dangerous restraints on civil liberty. For example, if a state legislature prohibited women from voting, the bill could prevent a court from enjoining the statute. While the court might find this law unconstitutional, it could not enjoin enforcement of it. Enforcement of rights, however, is essential to liberty itself. Without remedies, rights have no value.

Finally, even though Paul’s opposition to the War on Drugs and various practices involving the U.S. military (like indefinite detention, etc.) is clearly rooted in libertarianism, his preference for state protection of rights would imperil liberty. So, while Paul opposes the federal government’s War on Drugs, Paul is silent with respect to similar wars being waged in the states. This silence is striking in light of the fact that states prosecute most crimes in this nation. As president, however, Paul would not question impediments to civil liberty in the states. This omission, though consistent with his extreme views of federalism, make it impossible for him to wear the libertarian label. Ron Paul is not a champion of liberty. The Washington Post is wrong.


Permalink ronpaulsucks:

Are you kidding me with this guy?
It amuses me to no end when white folks laud the Declaration of  Independence — with all of its lofty rhetoric about life, liberty and  the pursuit of happiness — all the while stoically ignoring that all  that happy-happy-joy-joy talk didn’t apply to the Africans whites  dragged to this country and enslaved.
So when I see the tiny wizened messiah talking about the Civil War  and lamenting all the liberty that was lost as a result of the war, I  laugh bitterly.  When I hear him talking about goooooold! and ending the  Fed, I begin banging my head against the closest wall.
Dude is so out of touch with the 21st century, I’m starting to wonder  if he’s some sort of time traveler who crawled through the Rift and has  managed somehow to amass Paul-lovers and the Paul-curious from each end  of the political spectrum, and everything in between.  Everyone from  Katrina vanden Heuvel and Glenn Greenwald to David Duke and Stormfront  are singing this guy’s praises, in some fashion or another (but not  necessarily endorsing him. *wink wink*)
I find it fascinating and more than a little unsettling.
Here is Ron Paul giving a speech about how the South was right, and  the Civil War was awful because it destroyed “individual choice.”  Never  mind “individual choice” vis-à-vis the enslaved; they weren’t people  and thus could lay no claim to “individuality” or “liberty.”  What Paul  means by “individual choice,” is “white men’s (specifically white property-owning men) individual choice.” 
Just look at this silly little man, standing proudly in front of a  Confederate flag talking about the enslavement of black people in  transactional terms. In the Ron Paul Gospel, adherence to the  quintessential American values of “individual choice and” “liberty”  would have required the Yankees to buy the slaves’ freedom.  A  detestable notion, to be sure, but also historically inaccurate since,  as we all know, the South started it.
Ultimately, when it comes to black people, the world “liberty” seems to disappear from Paul’s vocabulary.  Funny, that.