Misrepresenting Liberty: Private Property Rights, Oppression and Ron Paul 2

Try to leave this place a little better than when you got here.

I can’t remember if it was the debate this morning or last nights debate when Ron Paul blurted out; “I’m for Liberty!” I hate it when politicians deliberately talk in slogans and sound bites. But leave it to Ron Paul to have that as his slogan, and it was certainly different than every other Republican at their 38th debate.

Let’s face it Ron Paul is an old style demagogue who covers his demagoguery in a pseudo-legal analysis of our Constitution. Now I am no legal scholar, but neither is Dr. Ron Paul, and I am pretty sick of that guy, because I think as a civilization we have moved beyond the glib analysis that all rights stem from property rights. Let me just say, even John Locke himself, if he were living, would have moved beyond such a limiting anti-progressive view of how humans organize and distribute power, seriously! He was a bigger thinker than that, as evidenced in his writing. We most certainly have evolved past 1787, and that is a good thing. You can see from Paul’s beliefs he doesn’t believe we should have evolved past that time.

I have some serious questions for Ron Paul supporters, how is it you can tolerate a guy who makes claims like: “Lincoln shouldn’t have fought the Civil War, he should have simply purchased those slaves from slave owners”. Does anyone else see how fucked up that is, in that it indicates he believes people can legitimately be owned by others, and you must purchase them to set them free.  To a person who has lived in the 20th and now 21st century, that line of reasoning makes no sense. It also occurs to me how little sense it makes to continually second guess past events, and make specious claims about what should have been done at that time. Pretty easy to talk shit like that, when it’s irrelevant since the Tardis isn’t available and even that Hitler thing kind of backfired on the good Doctor. Seriously, Ron Paul does the same thing when he talks about WWII, but here is the deal, who cares, he didn’t get to make that decision, this kind of half-assed I could have done it better, BS should be unacceptable to  a sentient being. How anyone can take that seriously leaves me incredulous. If Barack Obama said shit like that, he would  be living next door to Alvin Green in South Carolina. Sorry, but it’s a fact.

It isn’t just that he hangs with the likes of Alex Jones either, but that certainly doesn’t make him more appealing to a woman, a minority or a normal person who doesn’t revel in hatred.

Unfortunately, Ron Paul’s own beliefs and statements make me believe if Ron Paul could he would return us to an era where oppression was wrapped in the guise of  the catch-all phrase “property rights”. I don’t think that should be acceptable once again.

Ron Paul is wrong morally and probably legally when it comes to his glib pronouncement that the Civil Rights Act destroyed privacy.  What on earth does Ron Paul mean by that? He is basically saying business owners have the ultimate right to discriminate, because only they have the right to make decisions about what happens on their property? Answer this please Paululons,  can a civil society exist if we all were to simply shrug our shoulders and say; “oh well, if that cafe owner refuses to allow black people into that restaurant, no biggie we will just move on to the next restaurant” “Or oh well, too bad you can’t use that bathroom or that hospital or go to that school”. Come on, we all know those are dog whistle statements which are used to attract a certain kind of voter.

Ron Paul also said this: “[T]he forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.” But we need to critically unpack that statement.Is he really sure about that? He is saying of course integration wasn’t worth it, but let’s look around us people, I’d say it was totally worth it, we  have many many gains in the past 40+ years, and many things have changed in the attitudes of the majority of Americans. These things are good, and I think it was totally a worthwhile cause, just as it was worth it to integrate aka mainstream all kinds of students, as exposure to difference leads to tolerance and the ability to live together, more peacefully. Ron Paul is wrong, things are better, how on earth can he not see that?

It kind of bugs me though that so many people are willing to throw women and minorities under the bus for that kind of dude. Seriously, this guy is at best a relic, at worst he believes as women, we continue not to be full members of society and we are unable to make decisions for and about our own bodies. He is not a civil libertarian in the truest form as he favors government legislation that limits our access to health care. What right does he or anyone else have to intervene in a conversation we might be having with our personal physician?  I don’t necessarily want to have the abortion argument, but my opinion is this, it simply isn’t your business what goes on between a woman and her physician. You don’t have to like it, you can believe it is against god or whatever, but since we are not a theocracy then you don’t get a say in our bodies.

Ron Paul isn’t just against abortion he is also against birth control.  He made the claim that “Greater Access to birth control makes a mockery of Christianity”. Is this really a guy who should be getting 20% of any electorate anywhere? How is this possible?

So officially Ron Paul was once the sponsor of a bill to outlaw Roe V Wade, in his eyes we simply don’t have the same rights as men to make decisions about our lives. He makes the excuse of course that states should get to determine what individual rights a woman has over her body and essentially allows a state to determine what kind of medical discussions a woman is allowed to have with her physician.   It rubs me the wrong way though, I just don’t get how this guy has so many hard core followers?

Some people seem to think that Ron Paul is entirely different than your run of the mill Bircher, but he isn’t. Don’t ever forget that. Ron Paul doesn’t know what liberty is and if you vote for him, you are voting for that.

Advertisements

Ron Paul and those Unconstitutional Gold Medals 3

There are so many reasons not to vote for Ron Paul. His most ardent followers, (men on the interwebz)

Ron Paul doesn’t care about Civil liberties as evidenced by his medieval view of women and the rights they do not have over their uterine killing fields.

Ron Paul cares about what all teen boys care about, being allowed to smoke a spliff anywhere whenever they feel like it,  instead of just the basement of their parents houses, and the right to do anything you damn well please.

Ron Paul’s is:

  • anti-labor rights,
  • he opposes a minimum wage,
  • he opposes access to education for all, he opposes student loans, (No higher ed for the poors! Suck it up and go back to your profession of waiting tables and assisting the rich in other ways.)
  • he opposes environmental protection legislation,
  • he opposes our National Park system, Sell it all!
  • he opposes Medicare,
  • he opposes Medicaid,
  • he opposes Social Security,
  • he opposes FEMA,
  • in 2006, Paul joined 32 other members of Congress in opposing the renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act,
  • Opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

    “not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife” (obviously what he has written here makes no sense what-so-ever, is he saying the Jim Crow was A-OK, oppression was just fine, that businesses should be able to discriminate, that states could allow discrimination until the end of time, water fountains, bathrooms, busses, schools, hospitals etc and so on would always be segregated?)

  • Wants to Repeal the 17th Amendment (which seems utterly strange why shouldn’t Senators be directly elected by the people they purport to represent, how can it be more democratic to allow state legislatures to select Senators) and yet he opposed the electoral college, how very bizarre to believe the electoral college should be eliminated but to also believe the 17th amendment should be eliminated… ironies
  • he would dismantle the system of VA hospitals
  • He voted against 2004 and 2005 provisions that would shield makers from liability for MTBE, a possibly cancer-causing gasoline additive that seeped into New England groundwater. The proposal included $1.8 billion to fund cleanup and another $2 billion to fund companies’ phaseout programs

Ron Paul is a 19th century dude, in that he basically opposes America in her current form. Face it Ron Paul wants to return the county the what it was under the Articles of Confederation.  Ron Paul is nothing more than a felony free Lyndon LaRouche, he is a crank, a nut, and he isn’t a lefty and can never be considered one, not ever.

But let’s get to the issue of the Congressional Gold Medals, Ron Paul voted against many citing the Constitution and the $30,000 expense, but then he went a flip-flopped on his principles except I’ve been told by the Paululon hordes that he never dumps his principles.

Ron Paul has voted for these gold medals for other people:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-595

To authorize the President, in conjunction with the 40th anniversary of the historic and first lunar landing by humans in 1969, to award gold medals on behalf of the United States Congress to Neil A. Armstrong, the first human to walk on the moon; Edwin E. “Buzz” Aldrin, Jr., the pilot of the lunar module and second person to walk on the moon; Michael Collins, the pilot of their Apollo 11 mission’s command module; and, the first American to orbit the Earth, John Herschel Glenn, Jr.

That’s his pure voting record for the awarding of a Congressional Gold Medal to four people.  OMG at $30K *each* somehow was suddenly a good thing I guess.  One medal in 1999 to a very famous African-American civil rights pioneer which would naturally be publicized heavily, would also be very controversial if one were to vote against it, and the press would jump on it.  You know he used his tried and true excuse,  “authorizing $30,000 of taxpayer money is [not] constitutional.”  Yet a few years later, Paul voted in the affirmative to spend not just 30,000 but $120,000 on unconstitutional Medals. Hmm, I am not getting this at all.

Oh, and here’s another one, still less than two years after Paul cited his “continuing and uncompromising opposition.”  This one’s specific to the 110th IB, the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, To grant the congressional gold medal, collectively, to the 100th Infantry Battalion and the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, United States Army, in recognition of their dedicated service during World War II.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-266

Huh? Where is the purity on “cost of medals” to taxpayers?

Well then it is surprising to see that in April 2006, Congressman Paul voted…in favor of a Congressional Gold Medal – the same medal that he refused to award Rosa Parks on the basis of taxpayer cost and Constitutionality three years later, citing his “continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution,” to…The Tuskegee Airmen

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-1259

That isn’t controversial though, so it was an easy vote, it indicates a very murky record on his purity on the issue of “cost to taxpayers” & “constitutional” especially since George Washington himself received one! What??? The Horror!

And now I get it too, when he plays the “be scared of the black man” card he isn’t so much being a racist he is using racism to scare certain kind of people into voting for him and his issues. Most of his no votes against those of medals took place between 1998-99, and they were very controversial at the time.

The question has to be asked, was voting against those other medals for publicity? I think the Libertarian philosopher queen Ayn would be so proud of his ability to fool some of the people all of the time!  In light of this, it indicates to me Dr. Paul is little more than a cheap “all publicity is good publicity” famewhore!

Don’t Google The Santorum Surge 1

And so it goes, it is time for the Santorum Surge in the GOP Primary as each of the not-Mitt former front-runners flame out like candles in a typhoon. We should review what has happened in this season of Republican’s vying for the Presidency.

The Rise and Fall of Pre-Perry was great wasn’t it? Before Perry actually got into the primary race he was the greatest thing since moonshine and mason jars. But then the Rickster opened his mouth, and all that fell apart. His debate performances left people wondering if he was drunk and his refusal to prepare even for a debate sealed his fate as a a guy who will never-be-President.  He doesn’t seem to realize it though, but he should formally withdraw soon, he is just wasting his money now. And Pre-Perry was over with lightning bug speed.

Then there was the Christy Co-opt, which happened after Perry’s plummet. Chris Christy became a dream of the Republicans and he told them to stuff it. Wow, that ended before it began.

Then we had the Cain Mutiny! Oh it was grand, but then as quickly as he rose, his legs were cut out from under him, as women came out of the woodwork to end his campaign of selling books.

Then we had the longer lasting Newt Reformed, which had powered up the not-Mitt machine for what seemed like a lengthy political period of time, but then everyone remembered why the hell they hated Newt Gingrich in the first place!

The Paul Rocket has been building for quite sometime, I don’t know why. He is just another flash in the pan, because there is just too much negative information out there for him to be taken seriously as a candidate for President of the United States. Sorry Libertarians that is simply the truth. Google it.

So the next not-Mitt candidate is Rick “no one can have an abortion for any reason unless they are married to me” Santorum, he is moving up in Iowa like a dead fish floats to the top of the water. My prediction is, he too will be gone quickly. However, my advice to you all is to not google his name, and for that you can thank Dan Savage. Hah!

And that just leaves Mitt doesn’t it, my god, how is he going to be able to turn himself into the next not-Mitt candidate? I don’t know, but we are going to find out I am quite sure!

CrossPosted @ DAGBlog

Republicans Cave Under the Weight of their Own Glorified Ego’s 2

Poor Orange Boehner, he must have whiplash by now! First House Republicans say fine we will pass the payroll tax holiday. But once that word came down from the leadership, TBags and other Rockwell/Rothbard Libertarian goofballs then quickly took The Orange Boehner to the shower and sprayed off his newest tan.

“Oh no you didn’t”, they screamed from their perches as they watched for the 10,000 black helicopters that would be taking over the country for the UN, Mao and Kenya, in that order.

But they painted themselves into a corner from which they are unable to gracefully extract themselves, and now they have to capitulate, something quite foreign to these yahoos.

When Even their titular propaganda leader Karl Rove and the Republican stenographers at the WSJ tell you to suck it up, you’ve lost, wow, you’ve really lost.

Payroll tax cut has been extended for now, but expect Republicans to continue their attacks on Americans. It is how they roll.

GOP Debate IX – The Lament of Ron Paul 2

One thing we know for sure, Ron Paul hates the government, according to him it can’t do anything right, which is why he has spent so many years in government… err I think. He’s been in congress since 1976! And he says government doesn’t work, well maybe that is because he participated in making sure government is dysfunctional and by defunding everything he can, he will continue to assure its dysfunction. How many guys in congress are just like him, and how does he get away with saying this stuff.

So Ron definitely doesn’t want anyone to pay any taxes at all, and of course all government spending is eventually a tax, and all the Republicans in the audience clap, clap, clap. He is okay with state taxes I guess, because he truly believes that each state can have better solutions on their own and that there is no case that can be made for a federal centralized government. Ron Paul doesn’t want to go back to 1850 as many people have suggested, Ron Paul wants to return to pre-1791! He wants to return to the time when America was governed by the Articles of Confederation. He is a pretty interesting fellow, and a little bit silly, but okay let’s listen to him some more.

He is going to cut one trillion dollars in one year by cutting all the taxes I think, he isn’t really clear about this, but I know one thing for sure, he is cutting everything.

Health Care, we have too much! People are living longer and healthier, but we have too much health care. And there should be no government medicine, nothing, and doctors should be paid directly and torte reform! ObamaCare! He made the false claim that insurance premiums have gone up since ACA, but that simply isn’t the case.

He doesn’t want to fund the government but he does want to bring all the troops home to put on the border. I  wonder how he will fund this? Should be interesting. Will he just give back the bases we hold all over the world or will he sell the land on the free market before withdrawing all those troops from all over the world and bringing them home. Will they will all be moving to Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California?

He wants to cut all foreign aid, and even though he doesn’t believe in government programs he makes the absurd claim that money could be going to America’s poor. Can Ron Paul answer that question, would he really use the refund from no-foreign aid to feed and cloth and house poor people? Really? What government programs would he use to deliver? Unanswerable and no Paul follower can answer that question either.

Oh Ron Paul, you are so awesome, because my favorite part of the evening was when he did pwn them all when he told them straight to their faces that St. Ronald Reagan negotiated with terrorists! Oh no he didn’t, the look on their faces the rest of the debaters were stunned, silent, scared, you could see it, how would they refute him. It was spectacular.

Here is the video of Ron Paul’s hits last night.

Crossposted at DAGBlog