Monday, January 2, 2012

for Ladies only

Ladies of Liberty Alliance

Dear Ladies of Liberty and supporters,

We are now accepting applicants for our second LOLA training, it will be a public speaking training sponsored by the Leadership Institute in Arlington, VA and take place on February 4, 2012 from 10am until 6pm.  We will have top-of-the-line teachers and it will be an excellent  opportunity to gain experience and hone your public speaking skills in a pro-liberty, friendly group of ladies.  Please tell your friends and lunch will be provided.  Send a letter of interest to lola@iamlola.org.  

And finally, the much anticipated LOLA Speakers Bureau!  Included are women from around the country who are experienced speakers and known to be liberty-minded.  This will serve as a tool for conference, tv show, and radio show hosts, who are in search of liberty-minded females to speak about the issues of the day.  We anticipate that this list will grow exponentially, and we will update it and make it searchable and more user-friendly over time.


For now, there simply are not enough of us out there!  That is why LOLA is focusing on supplying the demand for liberty-minded ladies who are trained to be on television, radio, or to otherwise speak publicly.  We will highlight a new woman with every update.  This time, we are highlighting Emily O'Neill!


We will be offering another media training in February in Washington, D.C.  Details forthcoming so stay tuned.  

LOLA Speakers Bureau

LOLA Speakers Bureau

Your one-stop stop for liberty-minded female speakers, coming this fall.  

 

December Lady of Liberty Emily O'Neill

Emily O'Neill grew up in a small town in NH and pursued a B.A. in communications while participating in the Army ROTC program at the University of New Hampshire.  Emily was president of UNH's pro-life student activism group, Students for Life, and was co-president of the UNH chapter of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL).  After graduation, Emily moved to the DC area for an internship with YAL and later accepted a position on Capitol Hill as press secretary for Congressman Justin Amash (MI-03).  She remains a member of the 372nd Military Police Battalion, part of the Washington, D.C., Army National Guard and is currently volunteering for various libertarian causes. See the interview Emily created at the LOLA Media Training earlier this month and pass it along to your contacts who work in TV, radio, and video production!

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Why Conservatives Should Support Ron Paul

There's no "religious war"  about it PlainOl, but you cannot deny the fact that our very society;  our culture, our every day way of life and what we have become in the United States and Western Europe has been shaped by Christian ideals, principles and tenets. 
 
Today,  we have a large, vocal minority who wants to revise history, and take that Christian equation out of our culture.  They would like to deny Chrisitanity's very existence, and they either mock or shun everything that references our very heritage.
 
Couple that with an dar-al-Islam movement that wants to see the end of Western civilization as we know it,  and then, sprinkle in a bunch of crackpot Ron Paul supporters who are misinforned, and cannot see the forest for the trees.
 
All of this could speill a potential disaster if we are not ever vigilent.  The old adage comes to mind when dealing with folks like you:  "Either Lead, Follow, Or Just Get The Hell Out Of The Way!"
 
 
 


 
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:15 AM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
good luck with your religious war

On Jan 2, 10:03 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Once again.....How naive of you PlainOl......
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 10:10 AM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > his views on national security are asinine
> > ---
> > leaving the jews and muzzies to fight their own war is hardly asinine
>
> > choose sides carefully
>
> > On Dec 31 2011, 2:57 pm, GhostOfAdams <virtua...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > No thanks. I love his interpretation of the constitution, But his
> > > views on national security are asinine and his expectations about what
> > > a president can actually move forward and accomplish are wholly
> > > unrealistic.
> > > Again, No thanks.
>
> > > On Dec 31, 12:43 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Why Conservatives Should Support Ron PaulFriday, 30 December 2011 11:33
> > > > Dennis Behreandt
> > > > As Ron Paul has surged over recent weeks becoming a front-runner for
> > the Republican nomination despite mainstream attempts to derail his growing
> > popularity, among some conservatives, concern is growing.
> > > > Specifically, among those conservatives most concerned with foreign
> > policy, Ron Paul is viewed with skepticism, if not disdain. Support for the
> > Texas congressman, they say, will mean weakening America's position in the
> > world, leaving Israel weak and undefended, and giving Iran a free hand to
> > go nuclear. On the basis of these concerns, Paul's conservative critics
> > say, he would be bad, and possiblydangerous, for the country as president.
> > > > Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only would a Ron Paul
> > presidency help the country become economically stronger and militarily
> > more secure, it would reinvigorate the conservative cause.
> > > > To begin, it is necessary to put Ron Paul and the movement that
> > supports him into contextvis-a-visthe modern conservative movement at
> > large. Much continues to be made of Ron Paul as alibertarianrather than a
> > conservative. But while there may be some utility in considering Paul and
> > his supporters as libertarian, for some certainly are, it is more useful to
> > consider Paul an outgrowth, or an example of, American orthodoxy.
> > > > There is a subtle but important difference between an orthodox
> > political movement and a conservative political movement. In a broad sense,
> > those of a conservative mindset seek to save and preserve institutions
> > because they view those institutions as having demonstrated some
> > utilitarian value to culture and society simply by the virtue of their
> > existence. This was a theme explored by historian Jerry Z. Muller of the
> > Catholic University of America in the introduction to his bookConservatism:
> > An Anthology of Social and Political Thought from David Hume to the Present.
> > > > According to Muller, "The conservative defends existing institutions
> > because their very existence creates a presumption that they have served
> > some useful function, because eliminating them may lead to harmful,
> > unintended consequences, or because the veneration which attaches to
> > institutions that have existed over time makes them potentially usable for
> > new purposes."
> > > > Because existing institutions vary from nation to nation, conservatism
> > likewise varies from nation to nation. As a result, conservatives have
> > sought to save and preserve many things over the years in many countries.
> > Soviet conservatives sought to preserve Soviet institutions, for example.
> > An American conservative would look askance, for instance at an attempt to
> > paint the Soviet planning agency GOSPLAN as a vital and important
> > institution as it would violate the tenets of free enterprise most American
> > conservatives hold dear. Yet it would not be surprising to find that a
> > Soviet conservative might think that GOSPLAN should have been preserved.
> > > > In the United States, the institutions that tend to be of interest to
> > conservatives are of broadly two types. The first are those explicitly
> > created by the charter of government that brought the nation into being.
> > Therefore, American conservatism tends to be supportive of the separation
> > of powers among the branches of government. As a consequence of this, for
> > example, American conservatives often lament the prospect of judicial
> > tyranny or the tendency of modern presidents to rule by executive order,
> > which many see as infringing upon and diminishing the Constitutional role
> > of Congress. This also explains the seemingly contradictory position some
> > conservatives take of actually supporting the idea of a powerful,unitary
> > executiveas they see the Hamiltonian ideas of a more powerful presidency as
> > of central importance.
> > > > Second, American conservatives have generally been supportive of the
> > cultural institutions that they see as existing prior to the state. Among
> > these are defense of traditional values, defense of the family, and defense
> > of the idea of the common law. In both areas among conservatives these
> > things are valued primarily for theirutility. Because they exist, they must
> > therefor perform a useful function and we tamper with them at our own risk.
> > > > In contrast to the conservative point of view, the orthodox outlook
> > says that a given institution exists because it is in alignment with a
> > transcendental truth. Says Professor Muller: "...the orthodox defense of
> > institutions depends on belief in their correspondence to some ultimate
> > truth.... The orthodox theoretician defends existing institutions and
> > practices because they are metaphysicallytrue: the truth proclaimed may be
> > based on particular revelation or on natural laws purportedly accessible to
> > all rational men...."
> > > > It is from this latter point of view that we must understand the
> > phenomenon of Ron Paul. In the introduction to his bookLiberty Defined,
> > Paul places himself firmly within the orthodox American tradition by
> > acknowledging that he believes in natural rights that precede the
> > foundations of government. He writes: "The definition of liberty I use is
> > the same one that was accepted by Thomas Jefferson and his generation. It
> > is the understanding derived from the great freedom tradition, for
> > Jefferson himself took his understanding from John Locke (1632-1704)." Put
> > succinctly by Jefferson, this is the idea "that all men are created equal,
> > that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
> > that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These
> > are, to put it as Muller did, "natural and accessible by all rational men."
> > > > There is a substantial nexus between the orthodox American point of
> > view represented by Ron Paul and the modern American conservative movement.
> > The orthodox view holds that the rights enjoyed by individuals, including
> > to live, to build a family, to own property, to speak one's mind, to
> > associate with whom one wishes, etc., are inviolate and that governments
> > lack any legitimate interest in legislating in these areas. Meanwhile, the
> > conservative simply sees the outcomes of the exercise of these rights as
> > the institutions (the family, for instance) as worth protecting because of
> > its utility. But both the orthodox American and the conservative American
> > can agree on the value of the family and other such institutions. Moreover,
> > the explicit political institutions brought into being during the founding
> > era were created largely by orthodox American thinkers. In defending these
> > institutionsbecause they now existconservatives find themselves in
> > agreement with orthodox Americanists who defend them because in their view
> > it is morally right that they existedin their proper formin the first place.
> > > > Because there is a nexus of interests between the American orthodox
> > outlook and the conservative outlook, there should be a natural affinity
> > between the two. And while this has not necessarily been the case at least
> > since the 1950s, with both sides tending to look askance at one another,
> > the opportunity now exists for the two movements to work together for the
> > same goals. Consider some of the outcomes that are possible:Foreign
> > Affairs: Conservatives want the United States to be the preeminent power in
> > the world, both economically and militarily. The orthodox position cares
> > nothing for this as a goal in and of itself. Nonetheless, the orthodox
> > Americanist approach naturally creates conditions wherein the United
> > Statesmustbe the preeminent military and economic power. The orthodox
> > position is to call for the shrinkage of government down to
> > Constitutionally authorized levels (thus Ron Paul's plan to eliminate five
> > cabinet departments). The shrinkage of government means the government will
> > need to tax less and inflate the money supply to a lesser degree, leaving
> > vastly more money in the pockets of Americans, supercharging the free
> > enterprise system by leaving property in the hands of its rightful owners.
> > Under such conditions the U.S. will dominate the world economically because
> > all other nations will have, by comparison, larger and more intrusive
> > governments that disrupt their economies.Military Strength:
> > Counterintuitively, Ron Paul'sdesireto bring troops home would improve the
> > U.S. military's capabilities. Currently, with large deployments abroad,
> > both men and material tire and wear out. There are obvious costs involved
> > with regard to the necessary health care and maintenance this requires.
> > Less obviously, budgets for new and improved types of equipment come under
> > fire as the maintenance cost of keeping expeditionary forces in the field
> > grow. Over time this leads to a military with decreased war-making ability.
> > It is easy to see this starting to play out in the U.S. military. Warships
> > are increasingly old and are not being replaced. Frontline aircraft face
> > similar pressures. We currently fight with F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s, all
> > featuring designs dating to the 1960s. The B-52 bomber is older still, a
> > remnant of the
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

GENE SIMMONS of ‘KISS’ tells Barack Obama, “Grow the hell up, you know nothing”



New post on Bare Naked Islam

GENE SIMMONS of 'KISS' tells Barack Obama, "Grow the hell up, you know nothing"

by barenakedislam

Born in Israel under the name Chaim Witz, Gene Simmons relocated to Brooklyn at the age of nine with his mother, a Hungarian immigrant and the only member of her family to survive the Holocaust. RELATED STORY: who-knew-rocker-gene-simmons-was-born-in-israel-to-a-holocaust-survivor

Read more of this post

barenakedislam | January 1, 2012 at 5:58 PM | Categories: Islam and the Jews | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-EmK

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/gene-simmons-of-kiss-tells-barack-obama-grow-the-hell-up-you-know-nothing/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Muslims, my Ass







 

 

 

Harsh, but accurate!

 

 

Muslims, my Ass                       

 


 


 

Barack Obama,
during his Cairo speech, said:  
"I know, too, that Islam has always been a part
of  America 's story."


 
AN AMERICAN
CITIZEN'S RESPONSE:


 

Dear Mr. Obama:


Were those
Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims
first landed?  Funny, I thought they were
Native American Indians.


Were those
Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving
day?  Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and
Native American Indians.


Can you
show me one Muslim signature on the United
States Constitution?


 

Declaration
of Independence ?


Bill of
Rights?


 

Didn't
think so.


 

Did
Muslims fight for this country's freedom from
England ?  No..


 

Did
Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the
slaves in America ?  No, they did
not.  In fact, Muslims to this day are
still the largest traffickers in human
slavery..  Your own half brother, a devout
Muslim, still advocates slavery himself, even
though Muslims of Arabic descent refer to black
Muslims as "pug nosed slaves."  Says a lot
of what the Muslim world really thinks of your
family's "rich Islamic heritage," doesn't it Mr.
Obama?


 

Where were
Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this
country?  Not present.


 

There are
no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking
side by side with Martin Luther King, Jr. or
helping to advance the cause of Civil
Rights.


 

Where were
Muslims during this country's Woman's Suffrage
era?  Again, not present.  In fact,
devout Muslims demand that women are subservient
to men in the Islamic culture.  So much so,
that often they are beaten for not wearing the
'hajib' or for talking to a man who is not a
direct family member or their husband. 
Yep, the Muslims are all for women's rights,
aren't they?


 

Where were
Muslims during World War II?  They were
aligned with Adolf Hitler.  The Muslim
grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler,
reviewed the troops and accepted support from
the Nazi's in killing Jews.


 

Finally,
Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th,
2001?  If they weren't flying planes into
the World Trade Center , the Pentagon or a field
in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on
our own soil, they were rejoicing in the Middle
East .  No one can dispute the pictures
shown from all parts of the Muslim world
celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other
cable news networks that day.  Strangely,
the very "moderate" Muslims who's asses you bent
over backwards to kiss in Cairo , Egypt on June
4th were stone cold silent post 9-11.  To
many Americans, their silence has meant approval
for the acts of that day.


 

And THAT, Mr.
Obama, is the "rich heritage" Muslims have here
in America .


 

Oh, I'm sorry, I
forgot to mention the Barbary Pirates. 
They were Muslim.


 

And now we can
add November 5, 2009 - the slaughter of American
soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim major who is a
doctor and a psychiatrist who was supposed to be
counseling soldiers returning from battle in
Iraq and Afghanistan but has been proven to have Al Qaeda links.


 

That, Mr. Obama
is the "Muslim heritage" in America
.
 

EVERY AMERICAN,  CANADIAN, BRIT, AUSSIE and KIWI
MUST READ THIS !!


 

Be sure to
SEND IT TO ALL .  
 


 


 

Muslim Heritage, my ass

















































































 

 

 

 

 



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

New Poll: Nine out of Ten Paid Government Agents Oppose Ron Paul in the Iowa Primaries






New Poll: Nine out of Ten Paid Government Agents Oppose Ron Paul in the Iowa Primaries 

In the week before the Iowa primary, one candidate, Ron Paul, has been targeted for sustained attacks for offering views "outside the mainstream," that are said to be neither Republican nor American.


In trying to find something personal to smear Ron Paul with the public relations staff of the ruling class has come up kind of short.  They have suggested that he is a hypocrite because his Congressional district sometimes gets money via earmarks (which is even truer of every other candidate).


That didn't have much effect so they dug up 20 year old newsletters written under his byline by associates that are full of sophomoric, tasteless humor and appeals to bigots.  The result:  Ron Paul continued to rise in the polls.


Today in the Washington Post, Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson goes back even farther, to the Civil War.  Apparently Ron Paul is VERY old.  Ron Paul seems to think that the Civil War was not an unalloyed good, since it killed over 600,000 Americans and vastly expanded Federal power, all in order to wipe out an evil institution that was already dying out.  Apparently asking if there might have been a better way to achieve Emancipation is blasphemy.  But what does it have to do with Campaign 2012 and what a President could do about the disastrous economic situation we are in today?


One of the funny things about the onslaught against Ron Paul, something that no one in the media is commenting on, is that it is being conducted almost entirely by paid government agents.  On FOX News there is a daily interview with such figures as Clinton White House advisor Dick Morris, Bush White House speech writer Marc Thiessen, and Bush appointee to the United Nations John Bolton on how Ron Paul, his monetary policy, or his foreign policy, is "crazy."  The original source of Paul attacks is my friend James Kirchik, who in the last election cycle was merely a journalist at the Democratic magazine The New Republic, but who is now an employee of a government agency, Radio Free Europe -- a government employee whose job is to represent America abroad is writing articles in the New York Times and the Weekly Standard weighing in in a Presidential race.  (Is that legal?)  Today in the Washington Post the aforesaid Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson weighs in on how Ron Paul would not effectively conduct a new Civil War in America, should we have one next year.


It makes you wonder:  are there any people who are not paid government agents, publicity flaks for the federal government, who will speak out against Ron Paul?  And should we wonder if these people don't like the idea of reductions in the importance,  power, and budgets of the federal government, the State Department, the Defense Department, etc., because it would mean reduced paychecks for them?




Despite the daily non-stop attacks from chattering heads on TV news, Ron Paul remains tied with Mitt Romney in the Iowa polls.  On Saturday a former Bush speechwriter and a relatively unknown foreign policy analyst from a relatively unknown religious group have just appeared, back to back, on Fox and Friends, answering soft ball questions from a blonde and awake (but not much more) anchor, about how Ron Paul would let Iranian mullahs take our women and put them in harems.

The constant deployment of multiple flaks of the ruling political class daily on Fox and other networks and outlets has gone on for over a week now, with these PR people for the establishment virtually never being asked any follow up questions or challenged on the routine errors on points of fact.  Neither the media nor the politicians involved seem to get it -- that their dishonesty and incompetence is precisely the source of Paul's appeal and what is growing his campaign and the organizations he is going to leave behind after him.

So let us revisit the reportorial origin of much of this onslaught, the coverage of Ron Paul's two decades old newsletters, by my friend James Kirchik, formerly of the New Republic.










James Kirchik, or Jamie as his friends and associates know him, is a young journalist, Yale educated, Jewish and gay, a fan of the late Christopher Hitchens and a friend of many DC libertarians and conservatives, from tv and radio personality Mary Katherine Hamm to the editors of reason magazine.


For full disclosure I should say that I know Jamie, have gone out drinking with Jamie and his new boyfriend in the past two months, have attended one of his birthday parties, have chatted with him at reason magazine happy hours and CPAC events, and in my day time job as a real estate agent, sold him a property a couple of years ago.    Indeed at CPAC 2011 I introduced Jamie to a friend of mine who is Ron Paul's press person in his Congressional office, since I socialize with both of them occasionally, and got to watch them be awkward with each other before Jamie had to depart to his next event.  He's smart, I think probably far more decent than many Beltway journalists and political junkies, and good company.  He also has lovely parents, both of whom I have met.


Jamie made his name back when he was on the staff at the New Republic (in whose offices I used to meet him to work on real estate contracts) by exposing that some newsletters written 20 years ago by associates of Ron Paul that ran under Ron Paul's byline, contained noxious, bigoted, content (Paul associates Lew Rockwell, the late Murray Rothbard, and their entourage are usually fingered as culprits).  There were among the many years of this newsletter a few passages critical of gays, blacks, Israel and AIPAC.  I am choosing my words carefully here because in the current brouhaha some, including Jamie, are saying the newsletters are anti-Semitic, and I do not think merely criticizing Israel or the AIPAC lobby amounts to anti-Semitism; and neither did (Jewish) libertarian writer Jacob Sullum (whose wife is a rabbi --  and I am almost embarrassed to add that -- next I will be disclosing that some of my best dates have been with Jews, and indeed in a few cases with Washington establishment gay Jewish neoconservatives) when he reviewed the material for reason magazine during the last election cycle.  And whether Ron Paul or his policies are or are not "good for the Jews," they certainly have been good for one Jew, since they have gained Jamie most of the publicity his writing (which is by the way, usually very good, and is usually on deeper topics) has received.


Jamie answers, below in my comments section, by referring to, but not quoting, a passage in a Ron Paul newsletter that he says blames the 1993 World Trade Center bombing on Mossad, the Israeli espionage agency, as evidence of anti-Semitism.  That quote, in an incomplete form, is currently bandied about on the conservative blog RedState (http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/30/ron-paul-know-whos-really-behind-islamic-terrorism-the-jews/), as evidence of Paulian anti-Semitism.  In a continuation of typical anti-Paul, half-witted, intellectual dishonesty, where one can't tell whether your interlocuter is stupid, dishonest, ignorant, or some combination, the quote RedState actually produces says that it does not matter whether the 1993 bombing was done by Mossad or Islamic terrorists:


Whether [the 1993 World Trade Center bombing] was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little. 




So as it comes to the hermeneutics of Ron Paul newsletters, here's the funny thing:  if you want to believe that Paul, or libertarians, or paleolibertarians, or paleoconservatives, or anti-statists, or people who do not agree with you, or gentiles, or whatever, are all bigots and anti-Semites, you assume, parochially and perspectivally, that this clause is a sneaky aside asserting the guilt of the Jews.  Or you could assume that the clause should be interpreted as "even under the most outlandish assumptions, like that some Jews were behind false flag fake Islamic terrorist events" the same outcome follows.  Jamie assumes the former; I read it as the latter.


You might adduce as circumstantial evidence all the other bigoted passages that are not about Jews, and conclude that if these people hate the gays (or more precisely, if these people are willing to appeal to paleoconservatives with inflammatory rhetoric about gays), then they of course hate the Jews too (even if they themselves were Jewish).  Yes, yes, tell that one to Midge Decter (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-boys-on-the-beach/#).


Jamie also thinks the "Jewish friend" is a fiction.  I think I can dig up a number of cranky anti-war Jews on both the left and the right, several of whom trash me on the internet, who think the Zionist organization Irgun blew up middle eastern synagogues to scare Sephardic Jews into fleeing Tehran and Baghdad for Israel, etc., etc.  I suspect that the actual authors of these newsletters include a few such Jews, like the late Murray Rothbard.  (Indeed we should adopt a Straussian practice when writing about these newsletters:  there is the historical Ron Paul, and the Rockwellian/Rothbardian Ron Paul, just as there is the historical Socrates who is not the Platonic Socrates or the Aristophonic Socrates.  Of course, the historical Ron Paul had not yet drank the hemlock and could have sued his followers for identity theft if he had paid more attention.) (Incidentally, President Obama also has documents from the 1990s relating to gays that his representatives say he did not really write http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-groshoff/ron-paul-homophobic_b_1171695.html?ref=mostpopular)


If you try to find the context for this one sentence pull quote about a hypothetical attributed to a friend of the passage's author, which is not, as the RedState headline asserts a claim that "Jews" are responsible for Islamic terrorism, the link sends you to a compilation of heinous Ron Paul newsletter quotes in an article at The New Republic. 


If you click on the link at this TNR article attributed to anonymous TNR staffers (shades of both Shattered Glass and Ron Paul newsletter authordom there, no TNR?) you reach a very short blurb in Ron Paul newsletters that is not about Zionism, Jews, Israel, the World Trade Center bombing, Islamic terrorism, the middle east, or American foreign policy.  It's about gun control.  It urges the reader to acquire a weapon because cities are becoming more dangerous and the government is failing to protect citizens against violence -- which of course, was proven true on a grand scale by 9/11 less than a decade later, when the trillions of dollars of debt and taxes the ruling political class from Newt Gingrich and The New Republic  to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies have advocated saddling generations of American taxpayers with was so stupidly spent by their friends that there was no plan or equipment to shoot down a plane being used as a weapon against Manhattan or the Pentagon.  (And parenthetically let me say that the reason such rarer establishment figures as John Bolton, who seem relatively honest and reasonable for members of their class, have had far less effect than they hoped in their barrage against Ron Paul this week, is that their assertions that he is "crazy" are seen against the backdrop of their failure, the ruling political classes' continued bipartisan failures in foreign policy, at massive, impoverishing, and enslaving debt and expense -- including now a call that American blood and treasure should be used to protect oil that goes to Europe and Japan that flows through Iranian sea lanes, rather than producing our own oil in the United States or buying it from Canada and letting Europe and Japan themselves deal with Iran and oil they buy from the middle east.)


Odious as one might think it is to even express a hypothetical aside in which Mossad is imagined to bomb allies as a thought experiment, it is a false accusation to say that the quote in question blames Mossad and is therefore anti-Semitic.  And for all those tired hacks throughout the mainstream media who constantly say Paul's support derives from young ignorant people or protest voters let me make one thing clear to you sycophantic airheaded bitches and bastards:  Paul's support derives from people who hate you and your political masters for constant lies and stupidity and are reacting to your anencephalic coverage of everything from him, to the campaign generally, to the economic crisis.






Two questions I have never seen asked nor answered are:  1) where did 20-something Jamie learn of these newsletters, since they were written when he was a pre-teen (Kirchik was born in 1983), and most libertarians and Ron Paulistas were ignorant of them until after his original TNR story?  AND  2) who financed his excursion to the one or two libraries in Kansas or Nebraska where he could find a still extant paper copy back in 2007-2008?  Perhaps The New Republic financed it, as TNR has a long-standing fear of libertarianism, with regular articles attacking fictional libertarian straw men (which are then routinely exposed over at reason).  The answers are likely perfectly innocent (though rumor is Jamie was connected to the Giuliani campaign in 2008 and is supporting the Gingrich campaign in 2012) and yet it would still be very interesting to know (feel free to reply here).  Jamie's repetition and follow up of his 2008 articles in the Times and the Weekly Standard is timed both for the Iowa caucuses, which the political class fears Paul may win -- and also, more innocently, for the week when most readers would be interested and it would result in the most website traffic.






Jamie a day or two ago wrote an article called "Ron Paul's World" in the New York Times (here), rehashing the newsletter story and responses by liberalish writers like Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic who support Ron Paul.  Jamie strings together all of Ron Paul's past and present associations that an urban liberal would find suspect.  And they definitely exist.  I attended, and even sponsored, Ron Paul's Liberty Political Action Conference this fall in Reno, Nevada, which included libertarian and liberaltarian elements, tea partiers, independents, Republicans, Democrats, and some far right third party types (who were local to Idaho, Wyoming, Montana etc and did not have far to come).  Though the speakers and VIPs at LPAC were all respectable Senators and academics and celebrities, Sen. Rand Paul, Sen. Mike Lee, Prof. Walter Block, actor Vince Vaughn, some of the booths were manned by ultra-conservative Christian groups.   Strangely, these theocrats were very friendly to me, offering me pamphlets and trying to chat me up so much that I was tempted to slap on a pink triangle to test their ardor or their gaydar.  Jamie concludes from Paul's "failure" to tell off all of these donors and supporters that Ron Paul is a conspiracy theorist.  I conclude that Paul, an open and congenial man (I have met him) has been frozen out of public debate by the ruling political class for so many years that he will indeed go on a conspiracy kook's radio show if invited as long as the kook supports his ideas about ending the Fed or the American empire.


That may now be seen to be practically unwise and a strategic error in hindsight.  But it may be the only venue he had years ago when the ruling political class was censoring him the way they are still censoring former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson -- a two term Republican Governor whose absolutely shameful treatment by the media gatekeepers in collusion with the Republican Party establishment is driving him to join a third party and very possibly hand the 2012 election to Obama, all because and only because the Republican and media powers that be did not want his ideologically non-establishment voice to be heard.  As Johnson observed, media left him out of polls after he initially out polled Hunstman and Santorum, so that in subsequent debates they could then offer as a reason for excluding him that he did not show up in national polls -- because he was not included in the choices presented to those polled.  And now New Year's Day weekend we learn that CNN is only polling currently registered Republicans about how they will vote Tuesday in the Iowa caucuses, even though it is known that many independents and Democrats intend to register on site as Republicans and vote for Ron Paul (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/iowa-caucus-poll_b_1174668.html).






Jamie and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (who he is affiliated with, according to the Times piece, as is presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, which is not disclosed by Jamie or the Times http://www.therightperspective.org/2011/12/30/gingrich-think-tank-behind-ron-paul-slander/) are upset in part that Paul is not an automatic supporter of anything they believe is necessary for Israel's survival.  There is nothing wrong with that.  My own views are a rather recherche form of libertarian Zionism that makes no one happy, neither many libertarians nor many neoconservatives and other Zionists.  (And I am perfectly content with my specialness.)  Nothing that is, as long as one understands his actual ideas and does not misreport his ideas or policies.  (There are also Zionists, and Jewish Zionists, who have endorsed Ron Paul as a presidential candidate http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/7552#.Tv89rrIk67s or http://lewrockwell.com/orig12/farber-r1.1.1.html)


And Jamie does not understand much about Paul's economic policies. I google chatted Jamie yesterday, about how his gold standard/"goldbug" riff was a repetition of Dick Morris's inane misunderstandings/lies about Paul told daily with no challenge or follow-up questions to the anchors of FOX News shows, after this article was posted and he replied that he -- horrors -- did not get his ideas from Dick Morris. When I explained that Paul, following economists like Nobel laureate FA Hayek (The Denationalization of Money) and Lawrence White (Competition and Currency), believed in a free market of privately issued, competing currencies, backed by whatever consumers liked and thought would save value and protect savings against inflation, and NOT a 19th century government currency with a government gold standard, Jamie replied that he had never heard of such a thing and that that was even crazier.  (And I must apologize to Jamie in that, though he knows I blog and reads my blog, I did not tell him I was going to write this, though at the time I didn't know I was going to write this.)  In this Jamie is following along in the zoo chatter of most the animals in Beltway and Manhattan media and political campaigns, Republicrats and Demopublicans, who like to challenge each other with graphs about when living standards or employment rates were highest in terms of higher or lower marginal income tax rates, while "abstracting" from and ignoring what was being done with the money supply and interest rates at the time or in the preceding period.






How can you decide who is and is not a kook and what is and is not a "conspiracy theory" if one has a Dick Morris level grasp of someone's ideas about economic theory, history and policy?  For Ron Paul and other students of Hayek's "Austrian" school of economics, the fact that half of every economic transaction (money) is government owned, and that interest rates are centrally planned by the State and its appointed banking cartel, is the fundamental cause of economic disruption and unemployment, and hence poverty and much racial inequity.  You can't judge how Paul's policies would affect racial minorities or economic opportunity or prosperity if you are in the shallow water thinking that his critique of corporate statism is along standard Republican lines dealing with marginal tax rates or welfare reform or affirmative action.






If you are going to write articles on Ron Paul for 5 years, you should have heard of a basic, well-known (among Paul supporters) idea put forward by one of Ron Paul's major intellectual sources, a Nobel Prize winning economist.  And it is not a "crazy" idea because the ruling class is invested in the current system where a government currency is used to finance government debt and bail out banks (and fund the American military empire) by stealing the average person's purchasing power through inflation or because they fail to even discuss it in undergraduate classes at Yale.

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.