Activism Discussion: "Ron Paul Is Not Your Savior"

"Ron Paul Is Not Your Savior"
Posts: 18

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Dan Clore
2007-11-15 16:25:32 EST
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

[Not entirely from a libertarian position, but this does name some of
Paul's faults.--DC]

http://tinyurl.com/3d8cmv
ZNet | U.S.
Don't Believe the Hype (Ron Paul is Not Your Savior)
by Aura Bogado
November 14, 2007

Congressman and presidential hopeful Ron Paul has always opposed the
Iraq war, and that's really, really great. I'm happy for him. The right
wing ideologue actually gets the war, the CIA's practice of so-called
extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo right -- but the balance of what
he gets wrong is glaring and is almost as frightening as the amount of
friends and colleagues I respect that have signed on as Ron Paul
supporters. People seem to like that he appears to be an unusual
Republican candidate, but right below the surface of the libertarian
mask that Paul wears is an ultra nationalist, gun loving Christian
conservative that opposes affirmative action, a woman's right to choose
and same-sex marriage. And… oh yeah: he hates immigrants.

Paul is Not an Anti-Capitalist

Despite his record-breaking online fundraising effort, it's more likely
that pigs will fly before Paul wins the Republican primary. Regardless,
I'm dismayed at the left-wing, anti-capitalist buzz around him,
including the comparisons between him and Noam Chomsky. Paul's vision
for the harsh privatization of everything from education to social
security would only yield monopolies that don't work for everyday
people, much like our current healthcare system. The presidential
candidate advocates dismantling the few positive governmental
regulations that secure working-class rights and benefits, including
welfare -- again, clearly not anti-capitalist. And while I can admire
that any politician would call for ending the US' support of Israel, it
follows in the vein of Paul's nationalist, isolationist concept of
abolishing the United Nations and other diplomatic efforts to conserve
our own opulence while leaving the rest of the world to waste.

I Loves My Guns

Paul calls himself a strict abider of the Constitution, and says that
the relationship between the People and government is important.
Unfortunately, I wonder how many people would be left if we adhered to
this Texan's ideas surrounding the Second Amendment. Paul, who has
earned an A-rating by the National Rifle Association, champions the
cause to allow people to carry concealed firearms. And although ruling
after ruling has clarified that the Constitution does not guarantee
people the right to run around lugging assault rifles, Paul loves his
guns and according to him the issue is not even up for debate. Add to
this the fact that legislation like the 1968 Gun Control Act (which was
approved after the John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Robert F.
Kennedy were killed with um… guns) was passed in a way in which Paul
would likely interpret as unconstitutional, and you quickly realize how
fanatical this man is about the Second Amendment.

Paul and the Christian Right

Paul opposes the separation of Church and State. Yes, you read
correctly, he opposes it. He says there is a war on religion, and that
"Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination,
the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation
that religion must be driven from public view." We should remember that
when writing about the First Amendment of the Constitution (which
clearly states that "government will make no law respecting an
establishment of religion"), Thomas Jefferson coined the term
"separation of Church and State". If Paul's theocratic concepts were
instituted, we would have Old Testament displays at the nation's
courthouses, and Christian prayers would be part of each child's school day.

His religious conservatism seems to inform his views on topics as
elementary as evolution when it comes to education. When asked if he
would encourage presenting so-called facts to contradict the theory of
evolution in schools, he answered yes. This "alternative view" on the
theory of evolution means teaching the concept of intelligent design– a
pseudoscience which real scientists dismiss as another attempt to once
again introduce creationism into public classrooms. No thank you.
Intelligent design may have its place in church, on the street or at
home, but in terms of science, it doesn't propose any hypotheses which
can be tested through experiment; it's simply not science. Teachers
should certainly not be forced to teach right-wing conservative
Christian ideals about God in any classroom. When I take a biology
course, I go to learn about accepted theory. When I want to hear about
God, I'll go to church.

Paul also says that abortion is the tool by which the State achieves "a
program of mass murder". A staunch pro-lifer who writes books on the
topic in his spare time, he thinks States should decide the matter
(read: allow states to overturn decisions like Roe v. Wade to allow new
laws to protect the rights of what the Christian right calls "unborn
people"). Under Paul's proposal, States could conceivably pass laws that
bar women from obtaining abortions, including in cases of rape or
incest, and even when the woman's life is at risk. Any person that
values the right of any woman to choose what she will and will not do
with her own body should take caution -- Paul is to the extreme right of
the political spectrum on this issue. I understand that Presidents do
not decide abortion policy, but we have yet to see what Bush's Supreme
Court appointments will yield in terms of abortion rights in the years
to come. Any presidential candidate that would move to allow States to
eradicate women's rights doesn't deserve the attention and praise he's
getting from the Left.

When it comes to same-sex marriage, Paul says that federal government
should play no role in the matter and that anyone can get married and
call their relationship whatever they want. On its surface, that may
sound fair enough. However, Paul was an original co-sponsor of the
Marriage Protection Act in the House. Passed in the House in 2004, the
bill sought to preclude federal courts from transferring the recognition
of same-sex marriage across state lines. For example, a same-sex
marriage that took place in Massachusetts would not be acknowledged in
Alabama. Addressing the House in 2004, Paul made clear that if he was a
member of the Texas legislature he would bar judges from advocating "new
definitions" of marriage. Those of us who truly believe that anyone has
the right to be married and to be recognized as such should realize that
Paul's sometimes careful wording around the issue camouflages his
Christian conservatism which defines marriage as something that can
solely occur between a man and a woman.

Affirmative What?

Both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. headed to Washington in
March, 1964 to hear the historic Senate debate on the Civil Rights Act.
The legislation, which was passed a few months later, banned segregation
in schools and public spaces and made it illegal to discriminate in
housing and hiring processes. Malcolm, Martin, and millions of people of
color and their supporters knew that such legislation would permanently
influence and reduce de jure discrimination across entire nation,
including the reach of Jim Crow laws in the South. They also knew that
it was a necessary step towards reducing the de facto discrimination
that followed. Yet Ron Paul says that the Civil Rights Act was a
violation of the Constitution and that it reduced individual liberties.
Last year, Paul was one of only 33 Congress members to vote against
Voting Rights Act renewal, despite the fact that 390 of his colleagues
voted for it. Paul seems to want to go back to the times when racial
segregation was the norm and the law.

Paul is against affirmative action because, he says, no one should be
punished or privileged for belonging to a group, and everyone should be
treated as an individual. In stating this, Paul conveniently ignores the
truth that individuals from the white group are treated one way and
individuals from the people of color group are treated another way. He
detests calls for diversity, and adds that those of us who base our
identities on race are "inherently racist". His logic in the latter
statement is so far removed from reality that it makes it difficult to
respond to – suffice to say that people of color do not have the
institutional power to be racist against whites; his statement instead
illustrates his own racism. But it gets a lot worse: Paul's political
literature has stated that it is sensible to be afraid of black men;
that "95 percent of African Americans in [Washington D.C.] are
semi-criminal or entirely criminal"; that black male children (but not
white ones) should be treated and tried as adults for crimes they commit
beginning at age 13; and he referred to two black men that were
interviewed by Ted Koppel after the Los Angeles 1992 uprising as
"animals". Kanye West was right when he said, "George Bush doesn't care
about black people." Guess what? If his own political literature is any
indication, Ron Paul loathes black people.

Supporters who have gone as far as to donate money to Paul's campaign
should bear in mind that he has knowingly also taken donations from
white supremacist and former KKK GrandWizard Don Black. Other white
supremacists like David Duke also support Paul's bid for President. It's
easy for Paul to dismiss affirmative action as something that violates
individual liberty, but what hides behind that is the fact that he is a
hate-spewing presidential candidate aligned with some of the most
blatant, odious racists on the planet.

More "American" Than You and I

Not surprisingly, Paul offensive terms like "illegal alien", "illegal
immigrant" or plain-old "illegals" when referring to human beings who
live in the United States without proper documentation. Besides
"beaner", "spic" and "wetback", I cannot immediately think of other
words that approximate the bigotry that these terms are loaded with. In
this regard, however, nearly all presidential candidates and even
well-meaning everyday people continue to use these terms – except that
Paul is not well-meaning when it comes to the undocumented.

While addressing a group of supporters, Paul claimed that in terms of
work ethic, some undocumented workers "are more American than some of
us." WASP purists like Paul employ a type of historical amnesia which
yields an artificial yet neutral-sounding identity that they call
"American". Perhaps if Paul wasn't such an isolationist he would realize
that there actually are two continents worth of people that call
themselves American, and that the ones that do so in the United States
are not a chosen bunch. The truth is that the practice of pioneer
colonialism in the U.S. illegally and immorally took land from various
indigenous populations. Those pioneer immigrants, who illegally brought
African slaves with them, tried to enforce and superimpose their
cultural and linguistic practices on this stolen territory while almost
completely exterminating the people that they took the land from. Those
original populations that were not killed were illegally displaced
against their will. In practice, these pioneer immigrants illegally
crossed national borders, and as a result their decedents continue to
reap the structural benefits that were created. But instead of claiming
this pioneer immigrant identity (which requires a truthful look into an
uneasy past) they appropriate a fear-based, racist "American" identity
and demonize contemporary immigrants instead.

In Paul's fuzzy logic, all immigrants are here to suck the country dry
of its welfare, education and emergency healthcare systems. If it was up
to Paul, those systems would be voided for not only undocumented, but
for documented immigrants as well. Forget that both groups pay into the
income, property and retail tax system. Ignore that time and time again,
studies indicate that the undocumented pay more into the system than
they take out. According to Paul, even documented immigrants should be
stripped of any government subsidy. He also says that children born to
undocumented immigrants on US soil should not be allowed to hold
citizenship. The so-called strict abider of the Constitution wants to
overturn the Fourteenth Amendment so that children born to undocumented
immigrants are stripped of their birthright. Besides the serious moral
dilemmas surrounding his radical proposal, the practical limitations are
copious. What if one parent is documented but the other is not? What if
both parents were undocumented, but from different countries? What if
they were from the same country, but the country of origin refused to
recognize the child as a citizen of that land? Paul's scheme (like so
many of his others) is completely absurd.

Deconstructing Ron Paul

It's really not very complicated: people who are or stand with workers,
the poor, women, queer folks, people of color and immigrants will need
to look far beyond this candidate. Despite his supporter's efforts to
ignore the man behind the façade, it's time to get real and deconstruct
the pretense. Ron Paul is a free market capitalist who doesn't care for
the rights of workers or the poor; he is a gun-loving friend of the NRA,
he is a radical Christian conservative who thinks that school prayer and
intelligent design have a God-given place in public schools, that a
woman's right to choose should be crushed, and that same-sex marriage is
repugnant; he is a Congressman that has voted against affirmative action
and thinks that desegregation somehow violated the Constitution; and he
is a candidate that hates immigrants. Yes, we are sick and tired of
Washington, but just because Bush has failed so deeply does not mean we
can latch on to the very first presidential hopeful who wants to bring
the troops home immediately, yet simultaneously destroy the rights and
benefits we have struggled for centuries to achieve. Paul is certainly
not the answer and we need to stop pretending that he is. I recognize
and can appreciate that he stands against the Iraq War and everything
that the so-called War on Terror has wreaked at home and abroad. But
even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Aura Bogado is a writer and radio producer. She blogs at
http://tothecurb.wordpress.com

--
Dan Clore

My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://tinyurl.com/3akhhr
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

Skipper: Professor, will you tell these people who is
in charge on this island?
Professor: Why, no one.
Skipper: No one?
Thurston Howell III: No one? Good heavens, this is anarchy!
-- _Gilligan's Island_, episode #6, "President Gilligan"
























Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute
2007-11-15 17:29:31 EST
In message news:473CB94C.8020103@columbia-center.org, Dan Clore sprach
forth the following:

> Aura Bogado is a writer and radio producer.

Congrats, honey. You got your one-day spike in web hits. Have fun at your
next Wobblies meet.

James A. Donald
2007-11-15 18:57:19 EST
On right wing forums we hear that Ron Paul "embraces
queers", supports welfare and performs abortions, on left
wing forums we hear that Ron Paul would institute a
theocratic state in which homosexuals would be stoned
and contraception forbidden. I suspect the same people
are posting both stories under different names . Ron
Paul favors the gradual and orderly dismantling of
social security, giving young people (for whom social
security with social security taxes is a very bad deal)
the right to opt out

Ron Paul favors the separation of church and state, but
is inclined to doubt that the state expelling disfavored
religions from any part of society that the state
thrusts its tentacles into constitutes "separation of
Church and state". If organized collective Christian
prayer in schools is forbidden, so should organized
collective Islamic prayer and organized collective Gaea
worship. If Muslim footwashing bowls are installed on
government property, so should Christian mangers be at
Christmas time.

Ron Paul personally opposes abortion, but holds that
the federal government has no power to regulate
abortion for or against. Similarly for drugs - and
indeed, similarly for a whole lot of stuff.

Ron Paul would stop federal welfare and services for
illegal immigrants, and shut down the paths by which
illegal immigrants become citizens, and therefore
eligible to vote and receive welfare - but would not
prevent honest hard working illegals from earning an
honest living in America.

Ron Paul supports unilateral free trade, because he
supports freedom. He opposes multilateral
internationally regulated trade such as NAFTA, because
he supports freedom.

Ron Paul opposes foreign aid, the UN, NAFTA, the world
court, and the rest of that, because he believes in
independence and because he believes that foreign
governments are even worse than the US government.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

Curly
2007-11-15 19:27:10 EST
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:57:19 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:

> On right wing forums we hear that Ron Paul "embraces queers", supports
> welfare and performs abortions, on left wing forums we hear that Ron Paul
> would institute a theocratic state in which homosexuals would be stoned
> and contraception forbidden. I suspect the same people are posting both
> stories under different names . Ron Paul favors the gradual and orderly
> dismantling of social security, giving young people (for whom social
> security with social security taxes is a very bad deal) the right to opt
> out
>
> Ron Paul favors the separation of church and state, but is inclined to
> doubt that the state expelling disfavored religions from any part of
> society that the state thrusts its tentacles into constitutes "separation
> of Church and state". If organized collective Christian prayer in
> schools is forbidden, so should organized collective Islamic prayer and
> organized collective Gaea worship. If Muslim footwashing bowls are
> installed on government property, so should Christian mangers be at
> Christmas time.
>
> Ron Paul personally opposes abortion, but holds that the federal
> government has no power to regulate abortion for or against. Similarly
> for drugs - and indeed, similarly for a whole lot of stuff.
>
> Ron Paul would stop federal welfare and services for illegal immigrants,
> and shut down the paths by which illegal immigrants become citizens, and
> therefore eligible to vote and receive welfare - but would not prevent
> honest hard working illegals from earning an honest living in America.
>
> Ron Paul supports unilateral free trade, because he supports freedom. He
> opposes multilateral internationally regulated trade such as NAFTA,
> because he supports freedom.
>
> Ron Paul opposes foreign aid, the UN, NAFTA, the world court, and the rest
> of that, because he believes in independence and because he believes that
> foreign governments are even worse than the US government.


Well said, thanks Jim.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time to dust off Madam Guillotine
------------------------------------------------------------------------


*Anarcissie*
2007-11-15 20:22:56 EST
On Nov 15, 4:25 pm, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> [Not entirely from a libertarian position, but this does name some of
> Paul's faults.--DC]
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3d8cmv
> ZNet | U.S.
> Don't Believe the Hype (Ron Paul is Not Your Savior)
> by Aura Bogado
> November 14, 2007

As a liberal commentator noted recently, many liberals and leftists
seem to be complaining these days that Ron Paul is not a liberal
(in the contemporary American sense) or a leftist. He thought it
was an odd complaint, and so do I. This liberal, apparently a
media type, also pointed out that many of Paul's critics, left,
middle, and right, seem to be frothing at the mouth.

I suppose leftists may be somewhat jealous. Paul has been able
to question the assumptions of American imperialism in major
forums like the presidential debates. There are some Democrats
who have tried to do this but they haven't gotten any traction so
far. Imperialism, war, and the repression that go along with
them are not side issues, and if the Democrats can't oppose them
I guess we'll all have to go with a Republican who can.

Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute
2007-11-15 20:53:32 EST
In message news:c3e23c09-bb18-402b-bf12-
e*3@a28g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, *Anarcissie* sprach forth the
following:

> I suppose leftists may be somewhat jealous. Paul has been able
> to question the assumptions of American imperialism in major
> forums like the presidential debates. There are some Democrats
> who have tried to do this but they haven't gotten any traction so
> far.

That's because the Democratic base would rather support a warmonger who's a
woman or a minority than a true representative of their positions who's an
old white guy. Make Gravel or Kucinich a black female and they'd be
polling 25% or more.

Michael Price
2007-11-16 02:43:51 EST
On Nov 16, 12:53 pm, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
<*.@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
> In message news:c3e23c09-bb18-402b-bf12-
> ef5431d5c...@a28g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, *Anarcissie* sprach forth the
> following:
>
> > I suppose leftists may be somewhat jealous. Paul has been able
> > to question the assumptions of American imperialism in major
> > forums like the presidential debates. There are some Democrats
> > who have tried to do this but they haven't gotten any traction so
> > far.
>
> That's because the Democratic base would rather support a warmonger who's a
> woman or a minority than a true representative of their positions who's an
> old white guy. Make Gravel or Kucinich a black female and they'd be
> polling 25% or more.

No it's not that. Fundamentally the Democratic base believes in war
provided
it's done by "good" presidents for "good" reasons.

Broderick Crawford
2007-11-16 09:16:11 EST
Dan Clore wrote:
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo



Ron Paul IS the man.

Kurt Ericson
2007-11-17 07:50:44 EST
I would direct you to his web site for his stances on the issues of the day:

http://www.house.gov/paul/

in article 473CB94C.8020103@columbia-center.org, Dan Clore at
c*e@columbia-center.org wrote on 11/15/07 3:25 PM:

> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> [Not entirely from a libertarian position, but this does name some of
> Paul's faults.--DC]
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3d8cmv
> ZNet | U.S.
> Don't Believe the Hype (Ron Paul is Not Your Savior)
> by Aura Bogado
> November 14, 2007
>
> Congressman and presidential hopeful Ron Paul has always opposed the
> Iraq war, and that's really, really great. I'm happy for him. The right
> wing ideologue actually gets the war, the CIA's practice of so-called
> extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo right -- but the balance of what
> he gets wrong is glaring and is almost as frightening as the amount of
> friends and colleagues I respect that have signed on as Ron Paul
> supporters. People seem to like that he appears to be an unusual
> Republican candidate, but right below the surface of the libertarian
> mask that Paul wears is an ultra nationalist, gun loving Christian
> conservative that opposes affirmative action, a woman's right to choose
> and same-sex marriage. AndŠ oh yeah: he hates immigrants.
>
> Paul is Not an Anti-Capitalist
>
> Despite his record-breaking online fundraising effort, it's more likely
> that pigs will fly before Paul wins the Republican primary. Regardless,
> I'm dismayed at the left-wing, anti-capitalist buzz around him,
> including the comparisons between him and Noam Chomsky. Paul's vision
> for the harsh privatization of everything from education to social
> security would only yield monopolies that don't work for everyday
> people, much like our current healthcare system. The presidential
> candidate advocates dismantling the few positive governmental
> regulations that secure working-class rights and benefits, including
> welfare -- again, clearly not anti-capitalist. And while I can admire
> that any politician would call for ending the US' support of Israel, it
> follows in the vein of Paul's nationalist, isolationist concept of
> abolishing the United Nations and other diplomatic efforts to conserve
> our own opulence while leaving the rest of the world to waste.
>
> I Loves My Guns
>
> Paul calls himself a strict abider of the Constitution, and says that
> the relationship between the People and government is important.
> Unfortunately, I wonder how many people would be left if we adhered to
> this Texan's ideas surrounding the Second Amendment. Paul, who has
> earned an A-rating by the National Rifle Association, champions the
> cause to allow people to carry concealed firearms. And although ruling
> after ruling has clarified that the Constitution does not guarantee
> people the right to run around lugging assault rifles, Paul loves his
> guns and according to him the issue is not even up for debate. Add to
> this the fact that legislation like the 1968 Gun Control Act (which was
> approved after the John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Robert F.
> Kennedy were killed with umŠ guns) was passed in a way in which Paul
> would likely interpret as unconstitutional, and you quickly realize how
> fanatical this man is about the Second Amendment.
>
> Paul and the Christian Right
>
> Paul opposes the separation of Church and State. Yes, you read
> correctly, he opposes it. He says there is a war on religion, and that
> "Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination,
> the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation
> that religion must be driven from public view." We should remember that
> when writing about the First Amendment of the Constitution (which
> clearly states that "government will make no law respecting an
> establishment of religion"), Thomas Jefferson coined the term
> "separation of Church and State". If Paul's theocratic concepts were
> instituted, we would have Old Testament displays at the nation's
> courthouses, and Christian prayers would be part of each child's school day.
>
> His religious conservatism seems to inform his views on topics as
> elementary as evolution when it comes to education. When asked if he
> would encourage presenting so-called facts to contradict the theory of
> evolution in schools, he answered yes. This "alternative view" on the
> theory of evolution means teaching the concept of intelligent design­ a
> pseudoscience which real scientists dismiss as another attempt to once
> again introduce creationism into public classrooms. No thank you.
> Intelligent design may have its place in church, on the street or at
> home, but in terms of science, it doesn't propose any hypotheses which
> can be tested through experiment; it's simply not science. Teachers
> should certainly not be forced to teach right-wing conservative
> Christian ideals about God in any classroom. When I take a biology
> course, I go to learn about accepted theory. When I want to hear about
> God, I'll go to church.
>
> Paul also says that abortion is the tool by which the State achieves "a
> program of mass murder". A staunch pro-lifer who writes books on the
> topic in his spare time, he thinks States should decide the matter
> (read: allow states to overturn decisions like Roe v. Wade to allow new
> laws to protect the rights of what the Christian right calls "unborn
> people"). Under Paul's proposal, States could conceivably pass laws that
> bar women from obtaining abortions, including in cases of rape or
> incest, and even when the woman's life is at risk. Any person that
> values the right of any woman to choose what she will and will not do
> with her own body should take caution -- Paul is to the extreme right of
> the political spectrum on this issue. I understand that Presidents do
> not decide abortion policy, but we have yet to see what Bush's Supreme
> Court appointments will yield in terms of abortion rights in the years
> to come. Any presidential candidate that would move to allow States to
> eradicate women's rights doesn't deserve the attention and praise he's
> getting from the Left.
>
> When it comes to same-sex marriage, Paul says that federal government
> should play no role in the matter and that anyone can get married and
> call their relationship whatever they want. On its surface, that may
> sound fair enough. However, Paul was an original co-sponsor of the
> Marriage Protection Act in the House. Passed in the House in 2004, the
> bill sought to preclude federal courts from transferring the recognition
> of same-sex marriage across state lines. For example, a same-sex
> marriage that took place in Massachusetts would not be acknowledged in
> Alabama. Addressing the House in 2004, Paul made clear that if he was a
> member of the Texas legislature he would bar judges from advocating "new
> definitions" of marriage. Those of us who truly believe that anyone has
> the right to be married and to be recognized as such should realize that
> Paul's sometimes careful wording around the issue camouflages his
> Christian conservatism which defines marriage as something that can
> solely occur between a man and a woman.
>
> Affirmative What?
>
> Both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. headed to Washington in
> March, 1964 to hear the historic Senate debate on the Civil Rights Act.
> The legislation, which was passed a few months later, banned segregation
> in schools and public spaces and made it illegal to discriminate in
> housing and hiring processes. Malcolm, Martin, and millions of people of
> color and their supporters knew that such legislation would permanently
> influence and reduce de jure discrimination across entire nation,
> including the reach of Jim Crow laws in the South. They also knew that
> it was a necessary step towards reducing the de facto discrimination
> that followed. Yet Ron Paul says that the Civil Rights Act was a
> violation of the Constitution and that it reduced individual liberties.
> Last year, Paul was one of only 33 Congress members to vote against
> Voting Rights Act renewal, despite the fact that 390 of his colleagues
> voted for it. Paul seems to want to go back to the times when racial
> segregation was the norm and the law.
>
> Paul is against affirmative action because, he says, no one should be
> punished or privileged for belonging to a group, and everyone should be
> treated as an individual. In stating this, Paul conveniently ignores the
> truth that individuals from the white group are treated one way and
> individuals from the people of color group are treated another way. He
> detests calls for diversity, and adds that those of us who base our
> identities on race are "inherently racist". His logic in the latter
> statement is so far removed from reality that it makes it difficult to
> respond to ­ suffice to say that people of color do not have the
> institutional power to be racist against whites; his statement instead
> illustrates his own racism. But it gets a lot worse: Paul's political
> literature has stated that it is sensible to be afraid of black men;
> that "95 percent of African Americans in [Washington D.C.] are
> semi-criminal or entirely criminal"; that black male children (but not
> white ones) should be treated and tried as adults for crimes they commit
> beginning at age 13; and he referred to two black men that were
> interviewed by Ted Koppel after the Los Angeles 1992 uprising as
> "animals". Kanye West was right when he said, "George Bush doesn't care
> about black people." Guess what? If his own political literature is any
> indication, Ron Paul loathes black people.
>
> Supporters who have gone as far as to donate money to Paul's campaign
> should bear in mind that he has knowingly also taken donations from
> white supremacist and former KKK GrandWizard Don Black. Other white
> supremacists like David Duke also support Paul's bid for President. It's
> easy for Paul to dismiss affirmative action as something that violates
> individual liberty, but what hides behind that is the fact that he is a
> hate-spewing presidential candidate aligned with some of the most
> blatant, odious racists on the planet.
>
> More "American" Than You and I
>
> Not surprisingly, Paul offensive terms like "illegal alien", "illegal
> immigrant" or plain-old "illegals" when referring to human beings who
> live in the United States without proper documentation. Besides
> "beaner", "spic" and "wetback", I cannot immediately think of other
> words that approximate the bigotry that these terms are loaded with. In
> this regard, however, nearly all presidential candidates and even
> well-meaning everyday people continue to use these terms ­ except that
> Paul is not well-meaning when it comes to the undocumented.
>
> While addressing a group of supporters, Paul claimed that in terms of
> work ethic, some undocumented workers "are more American than some of
> us." WASP purists like Paul employ a type of historical amnesia which
> yields an artificial yet neutral-sounding identity that they call
> "American". Perhaps if Paul wasn't such an isolationist he would realize
> that there actually are two continents worth of people that call
> themselves American, and that the ones that do so in the United States
> are not a chosen bunch. The truth is that the practice of pioneer
> colonialism in the U.S. illegally and immorally took land from various
> indigenous populations. Those pioneer immigrants, who illegally brought
> African slaves with them, tried to enforce and superimpose their
> cultural and linguistic practices on this stolen territory while almost
> completely exterminating the people that they took the land from. Those
> original populations that were not killed were illegally displaced
> against their will. In practice, these pioneer immigrants illegally
> crossed national borders, and as a result their decedents continue to
> reap the structural benefits that were created. But instead of claiming
> this pioneer immigrant identity (which requires a truthful look into an
> uneasy past) they appropriate a fear-based, racist "American" identity
> and demonize contemporary immigrants instead.
>
> In Paul's fuzzy logic, all immigrants are here to suck the country dry
> of its welfare, education and emergency healthcare systems. If it was up
> to Paul, those systems would be voided for not only undocumented, but
> for documented immigrants as well. Forget that both groups pay into the
> income, property and retail tax system. Ignore that time and time again,
> studies indicate that the undocumented pay more into the system than
> they take out. According to Paul, even documented immigrants should be
> stripped of any government subsidy. He also says that children born to
> undocumented immigrants on US soil should not be allowed to hold
> citizenship. The so-called strict abider of the Constitution wants to
> overturn the Fourteenth Amendment so that children born to undocumented
> immigrants are stripped of their birthright. Besides the serious moral
> dilemmas surrounding his radical proposal, the practical limitations are
> copious. What if one parent is documented but the other is not? What if
> both parents were undocumented, but from different countries? What if
> they were from the same country, but the country of origin refused to
> recognize the child as a citizen of that land? Paul's scheme (like so
> many of his others) is completely absurd.
>
> Deconstructing Ron Paul
>
> It's really not very complicated: people who are or stand with workers,
> the poor, women, queer folks, people of color and immigrants will need
> to look far beyond this candidate. Despite his supporter's efforts to
> ignore the man behind the façade, it's time to get real and deconstruct
> the pretense. Ron Paul is a free market capitalist who doesn't care for
> the rights of workers or the poor; he is a gun-loving friend of the NRA,
> he is a radical Christian conservative who thinks that school prayer and
> intelligent design have a God-given place in public schools, that a
> woman's right to choose should be crushed, and that same-sex marriage is
> repugnant; he is a Congressman that has voted against affirmative action
> and thinks that desegregation somehow violated the Constitution; and he
> is a candidate that hates immigrants. Yes, we are sick and tired of
> Washington, but just because Bush has failed so deeply does not mean we
> can latch on to the very first presidential hopeful who wants to bring
> the troops home immediately, yet simultaneously destroy the rights and
> benefits we have struggled for centuries to achieve. Paul is certainly
> not the answer and we need to stop pretending that he is. I recognize
> and can appreciate that he stands against the Iraq War and everything
> that the so-called War on Terror has wreaked at home and abroad. But
> even a broken clock is right twice a day.
>
> Aura Bogado is a writer and radio producer. She blogs at
> http://tothecurb.wordpress.com


Kurt Ericson
2007-11-17 07:51:38 EST
Would you please cite your sources? Otherwise, it's just smear.

Thanks,

Kurt

in article 473CB94C.8020103@columbia-center.org, Dan Clore at
c*e@columbia-center.org wrote on 11/15/07 3:25 PM:

> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> [Not entirely from a libertarian position, but this does name some of
> Paul's faults.--DC]
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3d8cmv
> ZNet | U.S.
> Don't Believe the Hype (Ron Paul is Not Your Savior)
> by Aura Bogado
> November 14, 2007
>
> Congressman and presidential hopeful Ron Paul has always opposed the
> Iraq war, and that's really, really great. I'm happy for him. The right
> wing ideologue actually gets the war, the CIA's practice of so-called
> extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo right -- but the balance of what
> he gets wrong is glaring and is almost as frightening as the amount of
> friends and colleagues I respect that have signed on as Ron Paul
> supporters. People seem to like that he appears to be an unusual
> Republican candidate, but right below the surface of the libertarian
> mask that Paul wears is an ultra nationalist, gun loving Christian
> conservative that opposes affirmative action, a woman's right to choose
> and same-sex marriage. AndŠ oh yeah: he hates immigrants.
>
> Paul is Not an Anti-Capitalist
>
> Despite his record-breaking online fundraising effort, it's more likely
> that pigs will fly before Paul wins the Republican primary. Regardless,
> I'm dismayed at the left-wing, anti-capitalist buzz around him,
> including the comparisons between him and Noam Chomsky. Paul's vision
> for the harsh privatization of everything from education to social
> security would only yield monopolies that don't work for everyday
> people, much like our current healthcare system. The presidential
> candidate advocates dismantling the few positive governmental
> regulations that secure working-class rights and benefits, including
> welfare -- again, clearly not anti-capitalist. And while I can admire
> that any politician would call for ending the US' support of Israel, it
> follows in the vein of Paul's nationalist, isolationist concept of
> abolishing the United Nations and other diplomatic efforts to conserve
> our own opulence while leaving the rest of the world to waste.
>
> I Loves My Guns
>
> Paul calls himself a strict abider of the Constitution, and says that
> the relationship between the People and government is important.
> Unfortunately, I wonder how many people would be left if we adhered to
> this Texan's ideas surrounding the Second Amendment. Paul, who has
> earned an A-rating by the National Rifle Association, champions the
> cause to allow people to carry concealed firearms. And although ruling
> after ruling has clarified that the Constitution does not guarantee
> people the right to run around lugging assault rifles, Paul loves his
> guns and according to him the issue is not even up for debate. Add to
> this the fact that legislation like the 1968 Gun Control Act (which was
> approved after the John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Robert F.
> Kennedy were killed with umŠ guns) was passed in a way in which Paul
> would likely interpret as unconstitutional, and you quickly realize how
> fanatical this man is about the Second Amendment.
>
> Paul and the Christian Right
>
> Paul opposes the separation of Church and State. Yes, you read
> correctly, he opposes it. He says there is a war on religion, and that
> "Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination,
> the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation
> that religion must be driven from public view." We should remember that
> when writing about the First Amendment of the Constitution (which
> clearly states that "government will make no law respecting an
> establishment of religion"), Thomas Jefferson coined the term
> "separation of Church and State". If Paul's theocratic concepts were
> instituted, we would have Old Testament displays at the nation's
> courthouses, and Christian prayers would be part of each child's school day.
>
> His religious conservatism seems to inform his views on topics as
> elementary as evolution when it comes to education. When asked if he
> would encourage presenting so-called facts to contradict the theory of
> evolution in schools, he answered yes. This "alternative view" on the
> theory of evolution means teaching the concept of intelligent design­ a
> pseudoscience which real scientists dismiss as another attempt to once
> again introduce creationism into public classrooms. No thank you.
> Intelligent design may have its place in church, on the street or at
> home, but in terms of science, it doesn't propose any hypotheses which
> can be tested through experiment; it's simply not science. Teachers
> should certainly not be forced to teach right-wing conservative
> Christian ideals about God in any classroom. When I take a biology
> course, I go to learn about accepted theory. When I want to hear about
> God, I'll go to church.
>
> Paul also says that abortion is the tool by which the State achieves "a
> program of mass murder". A staunch pro-lifer who writes books on the
> topic in his spare time, he thinks States should decide the matter
> (read: allow states to overturn decisions like Roe v. Wade to allow new
> laws to protect the rights of what the Christian right calls "unborn
> people"). Under Paul's proposal, States could conceivably pass laws that
> bar women from obtaining abortions, including in cases of rape or
> incest, and even when the woman's life is at risk. Any person that
> values the right of any woman to choose what she will and will not do
> with her own body should take caution -- Paul is to the extreme right of
> the political spectrum on this issue. I understand that Presidents do
> not decide abortion policy, but we have yet to see what Bush's Supreme
> Court appointments will yield in terms of abortion rights in the years
> to come. Any presidential candidate that would move to allow States to
> eradicate women's rights doesn't deserve the attention and praise he's
> getting from the Left.
>
> When it comes to same-sex marriage, Paul says that federal government
> should play no role in the matter and that anyone can get married and
> call their relationship whatever they want. On its surface, that may
> sound fair enough. However, Paul was an original co-sponsor of the
> Marriage Protection Act in the House. Passed in the House in 2004, the
> bill sought to preclude federal courts from transferring the recognition
> of same-sex marriage across state lines. For example, a same-sex
> marriage that took place in Massachusetts would not be acknowledged in
> Alabama. Addressing the House in 2004, Paul made clear that if he was a
> member of the Texas legislature he would bar judges from advocating "new
> definitions" of marriage. Those of us who truly believe that anyone has
> the right to be married and to be recognized as such should realize that
> Paul's sometimes careful wording around the issue camouflages his
> Christian conservatism which defines marriage as something that can
> solely occur between a man and a woman.
>
> Affirmative What?
>
> Both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. headed to Washington in
> March, 1964 to hear the historic Senate debate on the Civil Rights Act.
> The legislation, which was passed a few months later, banned segregation
> in schools and public spaces and made it illegal to discriminate in
> housing and hiring processes. Malcolm, Martin, and millions of people of
> color and their supporters knew that such legislation would permanently
> influence and reduce de jure discrimination across entire nation,
> including the reach of Jim Crow laws in the South. They also knew that
> it was a necessary step towards reducing the de facto discrimination
> that followed. Yet Ron Paul says that the Civil Rights Act was a
> violation of the Constitution and that it reduced individual liberties.
> Last year, Paul was one of only 33 Congress members to vote against
> Voting Rights Act renewal, despite the fact that 390 of his colleagues
> voted for it. Paul seems to want to go back to the times when racial
> segregation was the norm and the law.
>
> Paul is against affirmative action because, he says, no one should be
> punished or privileged for belonging to a group, and everyone should be
> treated as an individual. In stating this, Paul conveniently ignores the
> truth that individuals from the white group are treated one way and
> individuals from the people of color group are treated another way. He
> detests calls for diversity, and adds that those of us who base our
> identities on race are "inherently racist". His logic in the latter
> statement is so far removed from reality that it makes it difficult to
> respond to ­ suffice to say that people of color do not have the
> institutional power to be racist against whites; his statement instead
> illustrates his own racism. But it gets a lot worse: Paul's political
> literature has stated that it is sensible to be afraid of black men;
> that "95 percent of African Americans in [Washington D.C.] are
> semi-criminal or entirely criminal"; that black male children (but not
> white ones) should be treated and tried as adults for crimes they commit
> beginning at age 13; and he referred to two black men that were
> interviewed by Ted Koppel after the Los Angeles 1992 uprising as
> "animals". Kanye West was right when he said, "George Bush doesn't care
> about black people." Guess what? If his own political literature is any
> indication, Ron Paul loathes black people.
>
> Supporters who have gone as far as to donate money to Paul's campaign
> should bear in mind that he has knowingly also taken donations from
> white supremacist and former KKK GrandWizard Don Black. Other white
> supremacists like David Duke also support Paul's bid for President. It's
> easy for Paul to dismiss affirmative action as something that violates
> individual liberty, but what hides behind that is the fact that he is a
> hate-spewing presidential candidate aligned with some of the most
> blatant, odious racists on the planet.
>
> More "American" Than You and I
>
> Not surprisingly, Paul offensive terms like "illegal alien", "illegal
> immigrant" or plain-old "illegals" when referring to human beings who
> live in the United States without proper documentation. Besides
> "beaner", "spic" and "wetback", I cannot immediately think of other
> words that approximate the bigotry that these terms are loaded with. In
> this regard, however, nearly all presidential candidates and even
> well-meaning everyday people continue to use these terms ­ except that
> Paul is not well-meaning when it comes to the undocumented.
>
> While addressing a group of supporters, Paul claimed that in terms of
> work ethic, some undocumented workers "are more American than some of
> us." WASP purists like Paul employ a type of historical amnesia which
> yields an artificial yet neutral-sounding identity that they call
> "American". Perhaps if Paul wasn't such an isolationist he would realize
> that there actually are two continents worth of people that call
> themselves American, and that the ones that do so in the United States
> are not a chosen bunch. The truth is that the practice of pioneer
> colonialism in the U.S. illegally and immorally took land from various
> indigenous populations. Those pioneer immigrants, who illegally brought
> African slaves with them, tried to enforce and superimpose their
> cultural and linguistic practices on this stolen territory while almost
> completely exterminating the people that they took the land from. Those
> original populations that were not killed were illegally displaced
> against their will. In practice, these pioneer immigrants illegally
> crossed national borders, and as a result their decedents continue to
> reap the structural benefits that were created. But instead of claiming
> this pioneer immigrant identity (which requires a truthful look into an
> uneasy past) they appropriate a fear-based, racist "American" identity
> and demonize contemporary immigrants instead.
>
> In Paul's fuzzy logic, all immigrants are here to suck the country dry
> of its welfare, education and emergency healthcare systems. If it was up
> to Paul, those systems would be voided for not only undocumented, but
> for documented immigrants as well. Forget that both groups pay into the
> income, property and retail tax system. Ignore that time and time again,
> studies indicate that the undocumented pay more into the system than
> they take out. According to Paul, even documented immigrants should be
> stripped of any government subsidy. He also says that children born to
> undocumented immigrants on US soil should not be allowed to hold
> citizenship. The so-called strict abider of the Constitution wants to
> overturn the Fourteenth Amendment so that children born to undocumented
> immigrants are stripped of their birthright. Besides the serious moral
> dilemmas surrounding his radical proposal, the practical limitations are
> copious. What if one parent is documented but the other is not? What if
> both parents were undocumented, but from different countries? What if
> they were from the same country, but the country of origin refused to
> recognize the child as a citizen of that land? Paul's scheme (like so
> many of his others) is completely absurd.
>
> Deconstructing Ron Paul
>
> It's really not very complicated: people who are or stand with workers,
> the poor, women, queer folks, people of color and immigrants will need
> to look far beyond this candidate. Despite his supporter's efforts to
> ignore the man behind the façade, it's time to get real and deconstruct
> the pretense. Ron Paul is a free market capitalist who doesn't care for
> the rights of workers or the poor; he is a gun-loving friend of the NRA,
> he is a radical Christian conservative who thinks that school prayer and
> intelligent design have a God-given place in public schools, that a
> woman's right to choose should be crushed, and that same-sex marriage is
> repugnant; he is a Congressman that has voted against affirmative action
> and thinks that desegregation somehow violated the Constitution; and he
> is a candidate that hates immigrants. Yes, we are sick and tired of
> Washington, but just because Bush has failed so deeply does not mean we
> can latch on to the very first presidential hopeful who wants to bring
> the troops home immediately, yet simultaneously destroy the rights and
> benefits we have struggled for centuries to achieve. Paul is certainly
> not the answer and we need to stop pretending that he is. I recognize
> and can appreciate that he stands against the Iraq War and everything
> that the so-called War on Terror has wreaked at home and abroad. But
> even a broken clock is right twice a day.
>
> Aura Bogado is a writer and radio producer. She blogs at
> http://tothecurb.wordpress.com

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron