So Much For Consistency...

From ThinkProgress, June 20:

Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), a libertarian hero, last year said that allowing Social Security to exist is akin to permitting slavery. But during an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe today, Paul admitted to the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein that he collects Social Security checks anyway

Representative Paul, in that quoted link, goes so far as to assert that Social Security is unconstitutional. ThinkProgress gives a transcript of an interview with Chris Wallace:

WALLACE: You talk a lot about the Constitution. You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.

PAUL: Technically, they are. … There’s no authority [in the Constitution]. Article I, Section 8 doesn’t say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution are you getting it from? The liberals are the ones who use this General Welfare Clause. … That is such an extreme liberal viewpoint that has been mistaught in our schools for so long and that’s what we have to reverse—that very notion that you’re presenting.

WALLACE: Congressman, it’s not just a liberal view. It was the decision of the Supreme Court in 1937 when they said that Social Security was constitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

PAUL: And the Constitution and the courts said slavery was legal to, and we had to reverse that.

Social Security is unconstitutional, says Representative Ron Paul - and yet he takes the money anyway.

If he feels that strongly about it, he should sue the guv'ment for all that money of his it unconstitutionally stole from him.  If he feels that strongly about it he should refuse to pay into that unconstitutional system.  If he feels that strongly about it he should refuse to accept any of that unconstitutional money.

I'm beginning to think that they don't really like women

[Where "I'm beginning to think" means "I've always known."]

Rick Santorum blames his wife for anti-feminist statements in his book.

GOP to fight to let any employer deny birth control coverage to women.

Virginia to continue shackling pregnant inmates while giving birth.

Zero Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee vote to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.

Fox News pundit says women in military should expect to be raped and that feminists have demanded too much money to fund programs for sexual abuse victims. (I wonder if Ron Paul would consider those to be "honest" rapes...)

Jack Kelly Sunday

Ed's right.

There's not much to fact-check in this week's Jack Kelly column though that doesn't mean there's nothing worth writing about in it.

This is Ron Paul -- Deal with it!

For all those who over the years have told me how stupid and moronic I am for not understanding that Libertarian Ron Paul is more pro state rights than anti choice or that he isn't explicitly pro Christian, please view the following ad. Please note that the ad is called "Staying on the Right Path" which is identified in the ad as being Christian and anti choice. Also note that this ad was created by his campaign and approved by Ron Paul and not just some surrogate or PAC.



Yep, just another anti choice, Christian, male Republican -- deal with it.

(h/t to Shakesville)

Ron Paul's Libertarian Patriarchy

Back in 2007 when I wrote in a post titled "Ron Paul Sucks" that "[T]oo often I find that the same Libertarian males who kick and scream and cry and rend their garments over the thought of the government taking one thin dime of their money have no problem whatsoever with the thought of that very same government crawling up into a woman's womb," I got (and am still getting) clobbered in the comments section. I admit now that I was wrong. But, only in the scope of my comment. It isn't just that Ron Paul is against abortion -- he's full on pro patriarchy. If he's the standard bearer, then libertarianism is truly only a philosophy for white, straight, Christian males who don't like paying taxes (and their delusional allies).

Via Digby:

Ron Paul (at 15:22): “Matter of fact, when the people came to Samuel and said, “Look, we need more rules and more laws. We want more government to tell us what to do and we — we need more of this.” And Samuel was old and ready to retire and he says, “No, that’s a bad mistake. You don’t need more rules and more government. You don’t need this — the government will overreact.”

And today this is what I think has happened to us. We have deferred to.. to the federal government. We have weighed too much government. We should go in other directions. Before you know it the next step — what if the next step is, “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the United Nations defined marriage?”

I don’t want to go that way, I want to go back down… all the way to the family and the Church — believe me it would be a happier and more peaceful world if we went in that direction, rather than asking the government and asking the King to solve all these problems… we need the family to deal with it.

And we can take our message and learn something from the Old Testament, how there was such a strong emphasis on the Patriarchal society and the disputes settled by judges rather than looking for Big Government.”

Huh.

While I disagree with a lot of what he thinks, I always thought that Congressman Ron Paul was at least intelligent.

Now I know otherwise.

When asked about the theory of evolution in 2007, Paul reportedly said:

"Well, first i thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter," he said. "I think it's a theory...the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory. But I think the creator that i know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all. I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side."

A spokesman for the Paul campaign did not immediately respond to calls for comment.

Here's the video.


The GOP: The Anti-Science Party.

Rand!

I agree with Rand Paul -- people should not rely on the government!

They should stand on their own two feet -- even if they don't have any!

People should rely on themselves! (Well, that and maybe their daddy's name.)

UPDATE: ...and he wins.

How they got here

1. I couldn't figure out why this old post from three years ago

‘Katrina Kids’ Sing ‘Congress, Bush and FEMA…Have Come to Rebuild Us’ at White House Egg Roll
was getting so many hits the last few days until I started seeing this story on a few blogs.

I still like the poster:


(Click on image for larger version)
(Keyword searchs: "katrina kids sing to laura bush" "katrina kids with laura bush" "katrina kids sing about bush")


2. I couldn't be prouder that when folks google image "Michele Bachmann" this



is the third image that comes up. It's from the post:

Michele Bachmann prepares to make her next pronouncement

3. Actually I could be prouder because when you google "ron paul sucks" the first two results are:

Ron Paul Sucks (in a really racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic way)!

and

Ron Paul Sucks
Better still, I love the way that Paulites google "Ron Paul Sucks" to TROLL the Internet looking for a fight and end up yelling at me for something that I posted TWO YEARS AGO (and only read the comments there every six months or so). Keep those hits coming!

BWA-HAHAHAHA!
.

Going Galt! (maybe next week)

Pandagon notes that even the blogger for Going John Galt hasn't managed to get around to going galt. These guys are just like Texas -- secede already!

And, their post gives me an excuse to put up a graphic that I did back in March but never got around to using here. I give you Going Galt! magazine:


(Click for larger image)
.

Why any Dem is better than any Repug for the White House

They're all nuts on Iraq! From last night's debate:


(Yeah, Paul is OK on Iraq, but he's a crazy old racist and a loon on everything else.)

(h/t to Digby)
.

Ron Paul Sucks (in a really racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic way)!

Back when I wrote my followup to my original Ron Paul Sucks! post, I mentioned that Paul had published some seriously racist newsletters. Unfortunately at the time, it was very difficult to get hold of much original source material for these newsletters and Paul at first said they were taken out of context and then years later claimed that they were ghostwritten. So, I was thrilled on Monday when I heard on Tucker Carlson that The New Republic had tracked down many of them and would be publishing an article about them yesterday. I didn't have time to go looking for them the other day, but Sue from Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents emailed me a post from Pam's House Blend that contains a link to The New Republic article. So what does TNR have to say about the newsletters? Here's for starters:

But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.

Yep, Ron Paul sure does suck!

You can go directly to selections from Ron Paul's newsletters here.
.

Talking to themselves

I am easily amused, but as easily amused as I am, I do not even come close to being as easily amused as Ron Paul supporters are over talking to themselves.

Back in August I wrote a post entitled "Ron Paul Sucks."

In October, I noted that my post came up fourth whenever anyone googled "Ron Paul sucks."

Well, it now comes up first and the comments to that post number nearly 100. I wouldn't know this except that I see google searches for "Ron Paul sucks" coming up multiple times each day on 2pj's stat counter.

It seems that Paul's acolytes have nothing better to do than to google "Ron Paul sucks" and try to engage in a conversation that I stopped responding to months ago.

At least, one can hope, it keeps them off the streets.
.

Why didn't Lincoln think of that?

If only he could have had Ron Paul to help him:


.

Dennis Kucinich Hearts Ron Paul

As a lefty, commie, progressive, liberal-type, I know that I'm supposed to like Dennis Kucinich. I know that I agree with him on many positions. But I've never really been a big fan. I chalk some of that up to the fact that I just don't trust people who have last minute conversions on big issues right before they make a run for president (Kucinich possessed one of the most antiabortion voting records of any Democrat in Congress right up until he announced his presidential candidacy the first time in 2003).

But, I have to admit that part of my dislike of him was that he often comes off as shrill and sanctimonious and -- sorry, folks -- I have a difficult time believing that a majority of Americans will vote for someone who looks like a Keebler Elf (not saying that's right, just that that is).

I know more than one fellow progressive who almost feels guilty not liking Kucinich more. They also know that they're supposed to, but they just can't bring themselves to support the guy.

So it's really nice to feel vindicated in my supreme ambivalence towards the Wingnuts' embodiment of a "moonbat":

"I'm thinking about Ron Paul" as a running mate, Kucinich told a crowd of about 70 supporters at a house party here, one of numerous stops throughout New Hampshire over the Thanksgiving weekend. A Kucinich-Paul administration could bring people together "to balance the energies in this country," Kucinich said.

It would create a stunning, if dizzying, blend of beliefs, wedding two politicians who hold different views on abortion rights, the role of government in providing health care, and the use of government in fostering -- or hampering -- the public's greater good. Those are among the reasons it would never work, said a spokesman for Paul, a congressman and doctor from Texas.

Anyone who's read this blog much knows that I have absolutely no respect for Ron Paul and, aside from both being against the War On Iraq, it's hard to think what Kucinich and Paul have in common. I will therefore make a guess as to what really motivated him.

Just as I find Kucinich extremely opportunistic in throwing off his pro-life mantle at a strategic moment, I believe that he's now grasping at those Democrats and Independents who say they like both men (the ones who drive me crazy).

Dennis, you've lost whatever progressive cred you may have had with this move. You haven't just seen a UFO, you're now apparently transmitting signals from one.

(h/t to Geekesque at Daily Kos.)

.

First on Google

Saw this over at Shakesville:

"[T]he premise is that you will attempt to find 5 statements, which if you were to type into google (preferably google.com, but we'll take the other country specific ones if need be), you'll find that you are returned with your blog as the number one hit."

So here's ours:

1. Absolut Corruption / Absolute Corruption
2. 2 Political Junkies / two political junkies
3. Lil Mayor Luke
4. Lil Ricky Santorum
5. Jack Kelly gets spanked

Also coming up #1:

"Ruth Ann Dailey spins" / "Ruth Ann Dailey boots" ("Boots" one comes up #1 for 2pj and #2 for Honsberger is a Liar. HA!)

Sadly, we only come in fourth for the phrase "Ron Paul Sucks."
.

Hey, Look at What Ron Paul (R-TX) Did!

On October 15th, he introduced a bill he's calling the "American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007"

You can read the bill (which was referred to the House Judiciary, Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Intelligence Committees) here.

Some curious provisions. On military commissions:

(a) The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is hereby repealed.

(b) The President is authorized to establish military commissions for the trial of war crimes only in places of active hostilities against the United States where an immediate trial is necessary to preserve fresh evidence or to prevent local anarchy.

(c) The President is prohibited from detaining any individual indefinitely as an unlawful enemy combatant absent proof by substantial evidence that the individual has directly engaged in active hostilities against the United States, provided that no United States citizen shall be detained as an unlawful enemy combatant.

(d) Any individual detained as an enemy combatant by the United States shall be entitled to petition for a writ of habeas corpus under section 2241 of title 28, United States Code.

On those "signing statements":

The House of Representatives and Senate collectively shall enjoy standing to file a declaratory judgment action in an appropriate Federal district court to challenge the constitutionality of a presidential signing statement that declares the President's intent to disregard provisions of a bill he has signed into law because he believes they are unconstitutional.

And so on. It bans torture and kidnapping and the use of secret evidence to designate someone an "foreign terrorist." You mean that's allowed now?

I've already written on some other less attractive bills the Congressman has introduced and I am reminded that as this bill just focuses on some aspects of the "War on Terror", it has nothing to say about privacy (medical or otherwise) or any other domestic issue.

On its face, though, it's a good start on the road back.

In the City Paper

RON PAUL! RON PAUL! THEY WROTE ABOUT RON PAUL!

Actually, it was Charlie Dietch.

And as far as I can tell, it seeks to answer the question: Who is this "Ron Paul guy, what are people saying about him - good and bad?"

While I'm not a Paul supporter (if I were, would that make me a "Paulist"? Just checking.), the article paints a balanced portrait - using sketches from supporters and detractors alike.

Maria the OPJ gets in a few digs:

Earlier this year, for example, South Sider Maria Lupinacci authored a post titled "Ron Paul Sucks" on the blog she co-writes, "2 Political Junkies" (2politicaljunkies.blogspot.com).

"Yeah, yeah, Republican candidate and darling of the Libertarian wing Ron Paul is good on Iraq," Luppinaci's post concedes. "But I just want to remind anyone who cares about women's reproduction freedom that he is anti-choice . . . I expect more from 'freedom-loving, keep-the-government-off-of-me' Libertarians. But, too often I find that the same Libertarian males who kick and scream over the thought of the government taking one thin dime of their money have no problem whatsoever with the thought of that very same government crawling up into a woman's womb." Lupinacci also questioned the wisdom of trusting issues like gay rights and even product safety to the states, and concluded:

"I say: Fuck Him."

You can find that blog post here, by the way. Dietch gives the Congressman a chance to respond as this follows right after:

Paul accepts such criticism as his due.

"There's a big difference in paying a lot of lip service to supporting the Constitution and actually going out and supporting it with your vote," says Paul. "The Constitution stands for something and I will support it. I'm not going to go out there with my vote and go along just to get along."

On the otherside of the aisle, there's my buddy Mark Rauterkus:

"He's definitely the best candidate out there right now for this country," says Mark Rauterkus of the South Side, a vice chair of the local Libertarian Party and a fixture on local ballots. "I think he's a libertarian through and through, and I am certainly supporting him."

Though there may be a question as to how libertarian Paul is. This is further down the page:

Some libertarians, meanwhile, say Paul isn't libertarian enough, or that on hot-button issues -- abortion, gay marriage and immigration -- Paul is nothing but a Republican in reformer's clothing.

Paul's stand on immigration, for example, strikes some as odd, given libertarian support for a free-market economy. Paul's belief that gay marriage and abortion should be determined by the states, meanwhile, doesn't satisfy libertarians who think the government has no place interfering with people's medical decisions or in bedrooms. [emphasis in original]

In the course of the article, we hear from Bill Steigerwald:

"I like him because he's the most anti-Bush Republican running. He's bashing the Republicans more than the Democrats are. He's showing that he's a Republican in party registration only."

And Bill Green:

"Local GOP consultant Bill Green attended Paul's Cranberry appearance in early August. He likened the experience of walking through the Sheraton parking lot as "going to see Jerry Garcia . . . I don't know that it will amount to much more than a few feel-good affirmation rallies, but he's obviously touching a chord.

"His supporters seem to be a collection of people who can't find any other place to go," says Green. "Certain things he says appeal to certain people, and they sometimes belong in very different groups . . . A lot of people from a lot of different backgrounds are going to say, 'Hey, he's talking to me. Somebody is finally talking to me.'

"Checking out the cars, I noticed license plates from about a dozen different states, they caravanned in just to see him," Green adds. "They're true believers. They are the same 'super patriots' that Pat Buchanan attracted."

Good article - check it aht.

While you're there, go read this piece on by Chris Potter on a political cartoon exhibit opening on the 14th at the Three Rivers Arts Festival Gallery on Liberty Avenue dahn-tahn.

American Caricature is a form of intervention, where international cartoonists get U.S. viewers into a room and hold up a mirror to them. The show features 76 works by 37 artists from a dozen countries (including the U.S.). Not surprisingly, most of the work comments on Iraq and the war on terror -- although, sadly, the show lacks any Middle Eastern perspectives. "It's a weakness of the show," Huck admits. But no matter what their nationality, Huck says, contributors felt, "This is long overdue.

Can't wait.

Ron Paul

For those of you who listened to David and myself on The Lynn Cullen Show today and heard perennial local candidate (and blogger) Mark Rauterkus call in the last few minutes of the show to plug Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul, the blog posts that I mentioned about Paul can be found here, here and here.

After you read them, you'll understand why I'm not a fan of Paul.

I'll be on McIntire's radio show today talking about...

You can hear me on MacYapper's 93.7 FM radio show today around 3:25 PM yapping about -- are you sitting, Mark Rauterkus(?) -- Ron Paul.

It all started with this post titled "Ron Paul Sucks" where I warned that some Dems might want to reconsider their embrace of Paul as their new darling.

I noted there that he was anti choice and anti Medicare. That brought in his Libertarian supporters.

Then my co-blogger, David DeAngelo, posted this on Ron Paul's HR 4379 bill which among other things said that the Supreme Court can't adjudicate "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction..."

Translation: "I'm a straight white guy who's always had his rights in the Constitution and I want to make it easier to screw women, gays, and anyone who wants to do any sexual act that isn't male/female missionary position.

What some of you Libertarian dudes seem to forget is that most recently overturned state anti sodomy laws don't distinguish whether it's gays or straights having sex and that oral is also sodomy. (Part of me wishes these guys would have their dreams answered only to find the LOCAL police busting down their door to throw their sorry asses in jail when the wifey gives them a BJ on their birthday. Would they be screaming "states rights" then, do you think?)

Anyhoo, in the comments section of the HR 4379 post Fair and Balanced Dave gave some links to some extremely disturbing info on Ron Paul and the subject of race and his appeal to neo-Nazis.

Ron Paul started publishing a monthly newsletter in 1986 calle thed Ron Paul Political Report, but later renamed it The Ron Paul Survival Report.

In the 90's the newsletter contained inciteful insightful quotes, like:

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,"

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,"

"...our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin."

"...complex embezzling" is "100% white and Asian;" and noting that
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Also, that he didn't think that "a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people." But, he continues, "black males, age 13, that have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary, and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

Barbara Jordan was called a "moron" and a "fraud" whose accomplishments depended on her race and sex.

The newsletter also 'advises the readers to purchase two books that offer legal advice on how to safely move money across the U.S. border, how to "buy and sell gold privately without leaving a paper trail for the IRS to follow," and how to avoid transactions that "label you a money launderer." If you follow the advice, it will "make it difficult or impossible for bureaucrats... to know what you have and where you have it," and will allow you to "bulletproof from seizure those assets you can't hide."'

At first Paul claimed the quotes were taken out of context, then he later said they were ghostwritten by a staffer (feel free to read the context here, if you can stomach it).

I called into Honsberger Live with permanent (?) substitute host Chris Moore and read some of the above quotes. Later, I got the call from John McIntire to be to be on his show, which leads me back to the beginning of this post...And, this is where you make a note to listen in. ;-)

.

Ron Paul and HR 4379

Congressman Paul introduced, in 2005, something he called the "We the People Act."

The bill sought to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on issues of religion, privacy, and gay marriage. The Supreme Court:

(1) shall not adjudicate--

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

My guess is that this means that if a state, any state, say the Congressman's own state of Texas, were to add Exodus 22:18 into its criteria for capital punishment or Genesis 3:16 into its family law statutes, the Supreme Court could not weigh in on the matter.

And this is the guy who's gonna save the country?