Calling the Remnant

Inspiration from Brother Tom, speaking in Oklahoma City, May 11, 2012.

Good versus Bad

To non-regulars, round these parts Dr Paul is GOOD, Krugman is BAD.

Notice how Krugman dredges up Friedman to use as a weapon against the sound Austrian free market position. Check out Rothbard's demolition job on the dean of the Chicago School.

Hat tip: the Circle Bastiat

Dyna-Ron keeps on running

Here's the mighty Dr Paul addressing a crowd at UT on April 26th.

Hat tip: Lew Rockwell

The Revolution Is

Here's a recent campaign ad for the Doctor

Here's a recent speech in Seattle

The Dynamo Doctor

Ron Paul fielding questions after a rally in Michigan.

Hat tip: The Daily Paul

Fair and balanced

This is quite funny, although I fear there are a fair few who might not grasp the joke.

Hat tip: The Daily Paul

Come on New Hampshire - be true to your motto ...

The one man in this race who understands what freedom means in all its perplexity.

Not that I'm interferring of course...

Hat tip: Lew Rockwell's Political Theater

Correcting CBS

From Digital Journal:

"Does the mainstream media hate Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul? That's what many of his supporters are asking themselves now. After Jan Crawford of CBS News omitted Dr. Paul from her report and from a polling graphic, many have complained to CBS.

According to the latest Suffolk University poll in the New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney sits in first place with 33 percent, while Dr. Paul polled second with 20 percent. Meanwhile, former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, who has bet his own campaign on the Granite State, is third with 13 percent. One day before the primary, 12 percent remain undecided."

See the clip below:

Hat tip: Infowars

Tom Woods in NH

Tom Woods, reporting from New Hampshire:

I asked the youngsters in what was predominantly a young crowd how many of them had held different views before encountering Ron Paul, and then after learning about him began to look at the world altogether differently. Huge cheer.

Then I asked, “Now how many people do you think have ever said, ‘My life was changed forever when I first discovered the philosophy of Mitt Romney’?”

Two Definitions of Liberty

The above is of course the one I subscribe to. Ron Paul stands up for individual liberty in its true sense, both in the personal and the economic sphere, and he speaks out against the Patriot Act and the recent NDAA, both of which are egregious violations of the principles in the Bill of Rights.

Below we find a different view from Rick Santorum. Part of what he says is reasonable. Few people deny that we have responsibilities to others, especially our nearest and dearest. However, Santorum rejects in principle the notion that we should be free to do as we please, provided we don't harm others. This is one thing to say on a moral level, it is quite another when you are seeking political office in which you will have the power to impose your will on everyone else.

Furthermore, he speaks of devotion to the 'the common good', which the interviewer rightly suggests makes Santorum sound like some kind of crazy collectivist (I paraphrase). According to Santorum, it seems, you are free to do as you're told.

Hat tip: Samizdata (although they block my comments for some reason)

UPDATE: The latest Lew Rockwell podcast talks about Santorum, with a different quote from him in a similar vein, having a pop at libertarians (@ 3:40), which is worth a listen (if only for the quote from one of Santorum's ex-colleagues on his IQ).

An Obsession With Language

In political discourse, as in communication in general, the choice of words is paramount. In addition to the simple meaning of words there are anciliary associations and implications which the wordsmith uses to reinforce the desired message.

The above is intended to be a statement of the obvious, as a prologue to noting the use of the word 'obsession' with regard to the beliefs and opinions of one's political adversaries. This particular one is often leveled at people like myself, who hold views which are not endorsed by the so-called mainstream. The aim is to convey the idea that the object is something unwholesome, or that the belief or interest in the thing stems not from a rational decision of the intellect, but from an impulse originating in the basal ganglia or some other primitive part of the brain.

Here is exhibit A:

What Is “Austrian Economics”? And why is Ron Paul obsessed with it?

The meaning of obsession from the Free Dictionary is thus:

1. Compulsive preoccupation with a fixed idea or an unwanted feeling or emotion, often accompanied by symptoms of anxiety.

2. A compulsive, often unreasonable idea or emotion.

So, is Ron Paul obsessed with Austrian Economics? If, when you asked him if he wanted a cup of tea, he grabbed your lapels and, with a faraway look in his eyes, uttered:

There are certain unsettled questions in economic theory that have been handed down as a sort of legacy from one generation to another. The discussion of these questions is revived twenty or it may be a hundred times in the course of a decade, and each time the disputants exhaust their intellectual resources in the endeavor to impress their views upon their contemporaries. Not infrequently the discussion is carried far beyond the limits of weariness and satiety, so that it may well be regarded as an offence against good taste to again recur to so well-worn a theme. And yet these questions return again and again, like troubled spirits doomed restlessly to wander until the hour of their deliverance shall appear. It may be that since the last discussion of the question we have made some real or fancied discoveries in the science, and some may think that these throw new light upon the old question. Instantly the old strife breaks forth anew, with the same liveliness as if it possessed the charm of entire novelty, and so it continues year after year, and will continue, until the troubled spirit is at last set free. In this class we find the question -- What is the "ultimate standard of value"?

... then you may have reason to suggest that the Good Doctor is obsessed. As this is certainly not the case, and that, going by the thousands of Ron Paul clips on the internet, he is quite capable of confining his discussion of Austrian Economics to occasions when it is indeed relevant, we can safely surmise that the writer's use of the word 'obsessed' is rhetorical sleight-of-hand.

So, in order to encourage the correct use of the word 'obsession' I offer the following examples to Matthew Yglesias of poor and misleading usage:

If I like a book that you don't like, it does not follow that I am obsessed with the book.

If I like 'The Godfather' and you don't, it does not follow that I am obsessed with gangster movies.

If I come home and find you robbing my television, and I object, it does not follow that I am obsessed with private property or material possessions.

If a woman discovers you have stolen a pair of her high-heeled slippers and you are currently masturbating furiously to the point of ejaculation all over them, and she objects, it does not follow that she's obsessed with hygiene, or indeed preventing the perfidious sin of Onan.

I hope this helps.

Hat tip: Lew Rockwell's Political Theater.

The last word on the newsletters

Hat tip: Economic Policy Journal

Digging through the Ron Paul archives

Below are various links to the Ron Paul newsletters, which his enemies have been making such a song and dance over. Readers, make up your own minds. I've gone through all the links below, and find very little dirt, and certainly nothing to justify the slurs being leveled at him.

My advice to the Ron Paul camp is gather them all together and publish them. Your enemies want to cherry-pick. Give 'em the whole tree!

The titles of the documents are given by the file names. I cannot vouch that they are correct.

Freedom April 1978 - A three-page extract, regarding the Canal Treaty. Nothing untoward, as far as I can see.
Freedom May 1979 - A one-page extract, regarding nuclear power. Nothing untoward, as far as I can see.
Freedom August 1983 - A one-page extract, regarding tax enforcement and big government. Nothing untoward, as far as I can see.
? January 1988 - A one-page extract, reporting, but not endorsing, William C. Douglass M.D's claims that AIDS is man-made.
Ron Paul Political Report September 1988 - A three-page extract. discussing Rockefeller and the Tri-Laterals, plus a mention of Scorsese's 'Last Temptation' movie.
Ron Paul Investment Letter April 1988 - A one-page extract. Nothing untoward, as far as I can see.
Ron Paul Investment Letter May 1988 - A one-page extract. Nothing untoward, as far as I can see.
Ron Paul Political Report April 1989 - A two-page extract. Quite interesting. It mentions the drug war, gun bans, Salman Rushdie, David Duke and skinheads, amongst other things.
Ron Paul Political Report, November 1989 - A three-page extract, reporting on Spy Magazine crashing Bohemian Grove.
Ron Paul Political Report, December 1989 - A seven-page extract (page 3 is missing, and possibly later pages). This is worth viewing as it discusses racism and homosexuality, and is one of documents that Dr Paul's foes are mining.
? January 1990 - A one-page extract, mentioning drug legalisation and criticising gay rights activists for their actions against the Catholic church.
? July 1990 - A one-page extract, mentions gay lobby attacking Tom Clancy
Ron Paul Political Report January 1992 - A two-page extract, endorsing Pat Buchanan's presidential run, despite not agreeing with him on everything.
Ron Paul Investment Letter February 1992 - A two-page extract. Nothing untoward, as far as I can see.
? July 1992 - Five pages of extracts, pages missing in between. Plenty of race stuff here. As ever, judge for yourselves.
Ron Paul Investment Letter October 1992 - A one-page extract, with comments on car-jacking. Racist? Shocking? You decide.
? November 1992 - A two-page extract. Nothing untoward, as far as I can see.
Survival Report January 1993 - A one-page extract, with a mention of demographics and race.
Survival Report April 1993 - A one-page extract, containing the reference to the 1993 attack on the WTC. It's worth comparing what actually was written and how this is being misrepresented, for instance in the CNN interview below. The writer does not accuse Mossad of involvement, but merely notes that a friend of his thinks so.
Survival Report September 1994 - A one-page extract, mentioning AIDS.
Survival Report September 1995 - A one-page extract, mentioning foreign troops on US soil.
Survival Report May 1996 - A one-page extract. Nothing untoward, as far as I can see.

Update: Some intelligent comment here from Proteanview.

Ron Paul uncut interview

The attacks on Ron Paul will be focusing on this one issue of the newsletters and making all kinds of dubious associations with people like George Wallace and David Duke. There will be plenty of guilt by association on display, of the 'Hitler was a vegetarian' kind.

Tied to this will be the attempt to misrepresent the standard libertarian position with regard to freedom of speech and freedom of association. We defend such principles, irrespective of whether the views expressed or the aims of association are ones we agree with or believe in. The enemies of liberty will forever tar us with the same brush as those they wish to silence.

In my roamings, I came to a particularly over-the-top attack on Dr Paul, which contained many links to the newsletters. I am assuming that the writer did not expect anyone to bother clicking through to the links. Having done so, I discover that the majority of the newsletter pages have no content whatsoever that could be used against Dr Paul. Instead, it's pretty standard fare for a libertarian, anti-state goldbug - hardly likely to put me off!

(I shall put the links in a separate post shortly.)

Nevertheless, Ron Paul's campaign are going to have to tackle this issue. If they do so, there's an opportunity not to spike the enemy guns, but to haul them off and turn them back on the enemy! At present the attacks are coming from the GOP establishment and their foot-soldiers (many of whom seem to have arrived very late in the day to such hyper-ventilating anti-racism), but the Democrats will also make use of them if Dr Paul stays in the fight, so they can't be ducked.

By the way, the last, almost inaudible comment from Dr Paul is; 'I understand how the system works'.

Hat tip: Activist Post

Ron Paul: Phase 3 is well and truly underway

As in the oft-repeated Gandhi quote.

His enemies still have nothing on him, bar this one issue with the newsletters, but when the order goes out to roll it 24/7, it could almost look - if you squint with your head at an angle - like a real story. Anything to avoid talking about the issues he's raising. The strategy is to brand him a racist, even though he clearly is not, and also to describe him as insane. He must be marginalised, discredited and destroyed as soon as possible, and the weight of the establishment is now swinging round against him.

This should surprise no one. Ron Paul represents a clear and present danger to the powers that be in Washington. He exposes the Republican High Command for what it is; a party of big government, deficit-spending and intervention in the economy, diametrically opposed to the liberties set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, and the limitations placed on the federal government by the Constitution. Ron Paul shows them up by their own purported values. How can they masquerade as small-government, low taxation conservatives as long as Ron Paul is hanging around?

This time the other candidates are at least prepared to nod in his direction when it comes to cutting spending and auditing the Fed. They don't mean it, of course, but they recognise a large proportion of their voters like to hear this kind of stuff, and if they can get him out of the race, then they can relax back into the conservative rhetoric, safe in the knowledge that the one man who will call them on the gulf between what they say on the campaign trail and what they have done in Washington will be out of the picture.

But he's not out of the picture. He's sticking around. He's got the money to continue his run and he has a support base that no other GOP candidate can hope for, and it's not bought and paid for by big contributors, but rather from a great many small donations.

We should take heart. They still have nothing on him, but this non-issue of the newsletters. We might as well get used to it, because they will be running with it as long as he stays in the race. Every moment the pundits can be talking about the newsletters is a moment they don't have to talk about ending the war on drugs, bringing the troops back home, balancing the budget and switching off the Fed's Mandrake money machine.

This first wave of attacks tell us all we need to know about the fake conservatives who dominate the GOP and the right side of the establishment media. They will never support Ron Paul. In the event of him winning the nomination, they will be supporting Obama against him. They will close ranks, not with the conservative, constitutionalist libertarian in their own party, but with the big government, anti-liberty statists in the other one.

Whatever Ron Paul has achieved, it has been done in spite of the media and political establishment. Expect no change there. This is going to be a long and dirty fight, and it's no time for summer souldiers.

Thomas Jefferson
Ask yourself: who would he support?

The one desperate smear they have

If you want to check how dishonest and desperate the establishment is at the prospect of Ron Paul winning Iowa, look no further than the Telegraph's story here.

Anyone familiar with Ron Paul will note how the Telegraph's claims that this is in any way a new story is utterly untrue. It begins:

Ron Paul, the fringe Republican hopeful (sic) who is threatening an upset victory in Iowa, was today engulfed in a political storm following the emergence of a series of racist newsletters that he published.

Following the emergence? This clearly implies that this is news, and yet this is exactly the same smear they used against him in 2008, as evidenced in this CCN post from January of that year, stating:

A series of newsletters in the name of GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul contain several racist remarks -- including one that says order was restored to Los Angeles after the 1992 riots when blacks went "to pick up their welfare checks."

CNN recently obtained the newsletters -- written in the 1990s and one from the late 1980s -- after a report was published about their existence in The New Republic.

None of the newsletters CNN found says who wrote them, but each was published under Paul's name between his stints as a U.S. congressman from Texas.

Also, here's Ron Paul responding to it at that time. Nevertheless, the Telegraph is happy to peddle a misleading hatchet-job that has been rebutted a hundred times, or else is essentially ignorant of the subject matter upon which reports. Either way, it shows why the establishment media is dying on its arse.

Alex on Ron Paul etc.

Alex discussing the panic seizing the impure hearts of the GOP establishment in the face of Ron Paul's pole position in the Iowa primary, together with the nature and purpose of the Nanny State, growing in America exactly as it is growing here.

Ron Paul on Jay Leno

Ron Paul debate highlights

Some great answers here, especially @ 04:53 on personal morality.

Ron Paul: Mr Consistent on those other candidates

Take a trip through Ron Paul's past, and see for yourself how consistent he has been in advocating freedom, prosperity and peace.



I could post clips all day, but here's another great speech from Dr Paul.