Ron Paul’s Slippery Slope

“What the support for Ron Paul among potentially progressive voters signifies to me is the failure of today’s left to enunciate an anti-imperialist position better than that put forth by the libertarian right,” Ron Jacobs commented recently on CounterPunch. This astute observation should give pause to all concerned with the scale of degeneration now afflicting the U.S. left. Indeed, it is worth remembering that only eight years ago, the left was on the ascendancy.

Back in 2000, Bill Clinton still occupied the White House and his neoliberal agenda remained alive in the left’s collective consciousness. In that context, Ralph Nader’s presidential campaign easily filled stadiums across the country, as activists and left-wing celebrities alike embraced Nader’s third party candidacy in a blow against both corporate parties. Those were also the heady days of the global justice movement, when optimism prevailed and solidarity grew, christened by the “Teamster-Turtle” alliance during the Seattle anti-WTO protests in 1999.

Then along came George W. Bush. The attacks of 9-11 catapulted the idiot president to the role of revered statesman virtually overnight, while his reckless band of neocon advisers moved from the margins to the center of imperial policy. That dismal period demoralized the broad left, and the mood of pessimism that ensued led many to sheepishly return to the folds of the Democratic Party. “Anybody But Bush” was the clarion call for this surrender to the logic of lesser-evilism, which has kept the corporate duopoly in power historically.

Nader’s 2004 election bid witnessed the mass defection of liberals and antiwar activists, who flocked to Democrat John Kerry’s campaign while heaping invective on Nader as a “spoiler” who would aid Bush’s victory. Alas, Kerry needed no help in spoiling his own chances for soundly defeating Bush: his pro-war, neoliberal campaign failed to sufficiently inspire the Democrats’ traditional voting base on Election Day. Once again, the chosen candidate of the well-organized Christian Right carried the day.

The 2004 election, therefore, marked the disintegration of the broad left that had risen so spectacularly in the final years of the twentieth century. Now, as the 2008 election approaches, the left is fracturing yet further amid a spurious debate over the merits of voting for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul that has surfaced on numerous left and antiwar websites, including CounterPunch. With breathtaking speed, self-avowed anti-imperialists and even former Nader supporters have embraced the logic of single-issue voting to justify support for this right-wing libertarian–based solely on his opposition to the Iraq war.

To be sure, Paul’s vigorous opposition to the war has provided a breath of fresh air during the otherwise stultifying presidential debates of both parties. Paul famously ruffled fellow Republicans’ feathers when he remarked last May at a Fox News-sponsored debate, “So, right now, we’re building an embassy in Iraq that’s bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting.”

But Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and Bill Richardson have likewise offered a refreshing departure from the antiwar posturing of this election’s crop of pro-war Democrats. During a September debate sponsored by MSNBC, Kucinich declared that he would remove troops from Iraq within “three months after I take office.” Kucinich went a step further, arguing for reparations to the Iraqi people: “The U.S. and Great Britain have a high moral obligation to enable a peace process by beginning a program of significant reparations to the people of Iraq for the loss of lives, physical and emotional injuries, and damage to property.”

But welcoming such departures from what currently passes for debate among the chosen candidates from the two corporate parties does not require endorsing the candidates who advance them. Rhetorical flourishes not withstanding, an alternative worldview is in order, and no candidate from either party is offering one in this election year.

Kucinich has attracted a significant left following since 2004. In addition to his forthright opposition to the Iraq war, he supports immigrants’ rights, single-payer healthcare, the legalization of gay marriage and abortion rights. But Kucinich embittered many of his most ardent supporters by backing Kerry and abandoning any fight for an antiwar platform at the Democratic Party’s 2004 convention. In so doing, he betrayed himself as unwilling to build a coherent alternative to the party establishment.

Ron Paul’s right-wing worldview

In contrast to Kucinich, Ron Paul’s lone appeal to the left is his vocal opposition to the Iraq war. Paul is a long-standing Republican who brandishes his right-wing libertarian worldview, consisting of standard reactionary fare—much of it coinciding with that of traditional states’ rights segregationists and the Christian right. For years, Paul has dodged accusations about his past murky association with an assortment of noxious right-wing newsletters. The January 8 edition of The New Republic contains an exposé by assistant editor James Kirchick that documents the bigotry contained in newsletters dating back to the 1970s–all “published under a banner containing Paul’s name.” Paul unconvincingly denies that he was aware of the vile content of these newsletters bearing his stamp of approval—over a period of decades.

But one need look no further than Paul’s own policy statements to determine the overarching political character of his campaign. His opposition to immigration is linked to his opposition to basic welfare provisions for U.S. born workers. In an article entitled “Immigration and the Welfare State,” Paul argued, “Our current welfare system also encourages illegal immigration by discouraging American citizens from taking low-wage jobs.” He voices admiration for Senator Robert Taft, the virulent opponent of 1930s New Deal reforms who went on to co-sponsor the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, strangling the rights of union workers to this day.

Opponents of U.S. imperialism should also take note that Paul’s anti-immigration policy specifically targets Mexicans crossing the U.S.’s Southern border and immigrants hailing from so-called “terrorist” [Arab and Muslim] countries. U.S. imperialism has historically regarded Latin America as its low-wage backyard, while rising racism against Arabs and Muslims has accompanied more recent imperialist forays in the Middle East. “With our virtually unguarded borders, almost any determined individual – including a potential terrorist – can enter the United States,” Paul has argued. His television ad aired prior to the New Hampshire primary advocates a draconian clampdown on immigration that rivals that of Tom Tancredo: “No amnesty. No welfare to illegal aliens. End birthright citizenship. No more student visas from terrorist nations. Standing up for the rule of law… Ron Paul for President.”

Ron Paul is not an open racist, but he opposes every federally mandated historical advance for African-Americans, from Reconstruction to affirmative action. In a December 23 appearance on “Meet the Press,” Paul described the U.S. Civil War as “senseless” and criticized Abraham Lincoln for getting “rid of the original intent of the republic.” Paul also stands in proud opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He was the only member of Congress to vote against its fortieth anniversary commemoration. He justified his no vote in an article entitled “The Trouble With Forced Integration,” in which he argued, “The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country… [T]he only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota.”

Paul’s opposition to abortion rights is not a “side issue” as some have suggested, but a centerpiece of his campaign. Twice in the last year, (in February and again in June) Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, proclaiming, “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” In February of last year, Paul also sponsored the Taxpayers’ Freedom of Conscience Act, banning the use of federal funds for “family planning activity” whether “foreign or domestic.” Paul thus hopes to accomplish what the abstinence-obsessed Bush has failed to do thus far.

Who’s holding back the left?

Yet Paul’s anti-imperialist supporters—who arguably should know better–have responded with vitriol to those unwilling to surrender once cherished left principles merely to advance Paul’s presidential campaign. In a Counterpunch article dated January 4, for example, Stan Goff lashed out at the “program-intoxicated, ‘I won’t endorse this-n-that position’ liberal-left. Ron Paul is backward on abortion, passively racist, anti-immigrant, and on and on.”

This begs the following question: Is Goff suggesting that immigrants who are horrified at the notion of voting for someone with Paul’s anti-immigrant policies guilty of enabling imperialist conquest? Are African-Americans who are unwilling to surrender the merits of the 1964 Civil Rights Act standing in the way of ending the war in Iraq? Are women who shudder at the thought of supporting Ron Paul, an anti-abortion zealot, holding back progress? I think not. And no amount of huffing and puffing can hide the fact that Goff himself is abandoning central left-wing principles.

On the contrary, by advocating single-issue voting, Paul’s left-wing supporters are endangering the survival of anything resembling a coherent U.S. left. Single-issue voting requires choosing one overriding issue and ranking its importance above all others in a given election year—pitting constituencies against each other as if their interests are counter-posed. Those now stumping for Ron Paul have effectively accepted the notion prevalent in bourgeois politics that “interest groups” are in competition with each other.

In reality, the rights of women, African-Americans, immigrants and gays are not counterposed to, but aligned with, those oppressed by imperialist war. This was demonstrated vividly with the rise of the Gay Liberation Front in the late 1960s—which, inspired by the armed struggle of the North Vietnamese against the forces of U.S. imperialism, chose its name as a formal identification with the National Liberation Front (NLF), the Vietnamese resistance.

Single-issue voting was once the bastion of Democratic Party liberals. Pro-choice organizations supported Bill Clinton in the 1990s because he favored abortion rights and then sat silently as he dismantled the New Deal welfare state, impoverishing poor women and children across the country. This silence also enabled Clinton to bomb Iraq with impunity while starving its citizens through sanctions and to claim that the U.S. invasions of Haiti, Somalia and the former Yugoslavia were “humanitarian missions”—not the result of imperialist ambition.

This faulty logic proved the death knell of liberalism in the U.S. by the end of the 1990s. The same logic now leaves Ron Paul’s left-wing supporters teetering atop a slippery slope, and perhaps headed into oblivion. Paul’s enthusiastic grassroots support shows the potential to energize the antiwar electorate. But the left should do more than applaud, for Paul’s libertarian worldview lands his supporters in the same political cul-de-sac as any other bourgeois politician. Indeed, the left has a responsibility to itself—to rebuild, however difficult the circumstances.

Sharon Smith is the author of Women and Socialism and Subterranean Fire: a History of Working-Class Radicalism in the United States. She can be reached at: This article first appeared on the SW website. Read other articles by Sharon, or visit Sharon's website.

50 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. messianicdruid said on January 17th, 2008 at 9:40am #

    You keep citing all these things that RP says, and fail to explain why they are bad, as if everyone can see through the eyes of a “lefty” and accept the supposed evil intent. I don’t want the gooberment’s so-called help. I want them to leave me alone.

    Let’s be realistic for once. We are on our own. Anything the gooberment does to try to help us, even at our request {even at our direction} is going to screw something up for somebody else. Stop asking anybody to help you or protect you or to bother anyone else for you. If you would not personally {here’s your problem} go and take money from your neighbor, {at gunpoint} to pay for what you feel you are entitled to, then don’t ask the gooberment to do it on your behalf. This does not apply only to other Americans, but to anyone on the planet. Also, get away from all these asinine labels; left vs right, top vs bottom, this vs that, us vs. them, etc. etc., ad infinitum ad nauseum…

  2. Andrew said on January 17th, 2008 at 10:19am #

    This was one of the best reads I have had in a long time. The debate between socialism and libertarianism is far more intrigueing than the debate between libralism and conservatism. Though I tend to be slightly more libertarian than socialist, I can see myself see-sawing on different issues.
    Wonderful, interesting and thought provoking.
    Nice work.

  3. chad said on January 17th, 2008 at 10:27am #

    socialists have a lot in common with fungii. the vast network of
    mycelium remains out of view, underground, while permeating a vast
    territory of institutions – from education to media to government.
    they thrive off the rot and decay of society, and produce little of
    value except the occasional fruit/mushroom, and even then, only under
    the strictest of conditions; and they tend to die off in the presence
    of light (reason, knowledge). they can reproduce without an opposite
    sex, and they release millions of spores/ideas that can blow invisibly
    almost anywhere, sprouting anywhere there is more death to thrive upon.

  4. Deadbeat said on January 17th, 2008 at 10:27am #

    Also, get away from all these asinine labels; left vs right, top vs bottom, this vs that, us vs. them, etc. etc., ad infinitum ad nauseum…

    These aren’t “asinine” labels. They describe where on the political spectrum your ideas fall. Apparently you embraces authoritarianism that is inherent in capitalism. Why should I want the government and its power to be the protector of the despotism of a rich minority. When the government does nothing and allows capitalism and racism to run rampant like you desire that infringes on MY liberties.

  5. Deadbeat said on January 17th, 2008 at 10:37am #

    I want to that Sharon Smith for providing the most cogent assessment and analysis against Ron Paul and her articulation of the present crisis on the left.

  6. chad said on January 17th, 2008 at 10:45am #

    > These aren’t “asinine” labels. They describe where on the political spectrum your ideas fall. Apparently you embraces authoritarianism that is inherent in capitalism. Why should I want the government and its power to be the protector of the despotism of a rich minority. When the government does nothing and allows capitalism and racism to run rampant like you desire that infringes on MY liberties.

    something is wrong with this thinking: 1. “political spectrums” are asinine because they are simply part of the dielectic with which to control, and you fall right into the trap with your group-think, eg, aligning with a spectrum – so much for the liberty you think you have. 2. authoritarianism has nothing to do with capitalism, at least as you see it. though i would agree that a monetary system based upon paper-money and usury gives to those who have, and takes from those who don’t. 3. you are deluded in thinking that “government and its power” can protect the “poor majority” as it can the “rich minority”. government will ALWAYS serve the corporations that buy the politicians. the best you can hope for is as little government as possible, so they are not oppresive to the “poor majority”. 4. when government does nothing, you are free to compete on equal ground without interference, and without protective corporate regulations, and you will have much more liberty that you would otherwise.

  7. RJK said on January 17th, 2008 at 10:48am #

    “When the government does nothing and allows capitalism and racism to run rampant like you desire that infringes on MY liberties.”

    True capitalism is not bad. What is bad is when the government, instead of protecting the rights of individuals, protects monopolists, big business and itself instead.

    What Ron Paul really stands for is a return to constitutional rule of law. If it is not in the amended constitution, then the federal government shouldn’t be doing it. If a state government wants to legislate some of these things, then so be it as long as legislation does not infringe upon those rights enforced by the Bill of Rights.

    As I find myself so often doing, I encourage anybody who reads this to also read the US Constitution (with amendments, of course) – you may be surprised at what you see and don’t see.

  8. Owen said on January 17th, 2008 at 10:51am #

    You have completely missed the point. Politics in this country have become a quelling joke. I am so sick of the leftist and the rightists. All of the pandering they do to get the American people behind them. Once elected they serve those who helped them get there whether it be the right or left. This partisanship is perpetuated by media and industry to limit real debate about a system that is flawed. Each side left and right offer quick fixes, like a band aid on a bleeding artery; enough to slow down the bleeding until it is someone else’s problem. We need someone who can replace the spouting artery. We need someone who can rise above the two sided debate and face up to the shortcomings of a flawed system of government. When you look at the causation of problems on all fronts of government it all leads down one road… the economy. Who will take control over this country’s run away spending and borrowing? Ask yourself this question… If I ran my life like the the U.S. government does what kind of person would I be? The answer is bankrupt, in debt (mostly to foreign countries) Ok now that your broke what’s next? Well the people you owe money to are going to start asking for it back and if you cannot pay them back they are going to want property (house lien, garnished wages) in lieu of payment. Right now foreign countries are buying up American banking interests, American manufacturing interests, etc etc etc etc. The more in debt we go the less and less we as Americans “own”. To take back government and national sovereignty we have to do it with the U.S. government’s check book. The debate has been marginalized and minimalized for too long. Stop listening to bi- partisan journalism and look at the root causes for the problems we are in. The only form of government/civilization that will function properly has to be devised using one key law of physics “For each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Think about all of the actions taken in America’s name that comes back 20 years later and bites us in the ass. We cannot hold the policy issuer responsible for their own blow back so we again temporarily patch up that particular problem without addressing the fundamental issue of why it happened. We haven’t as a nation addressed the roots of our problems, the causative effects, and until we do the same left/right rhetoric will continue to limit significant debate and impetus for real change

  9. Don Hawkins said on January 17th, 2008 at 11:39am #

    Thus we suggest that, barring the unlikely event of a large
    volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected
    within the next 2-3 years. James Hansen
    Martinson said researchers do not have enough data to say for certain that the process was set in motion by global warming, but “that is clearly the most logical answer.”

    Pachauri, the IPCC’s chief of climate science, will visit Antarctica this week with Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg to get a firsthand view of the situation.

    “You can read as much as you want on these subjects, but it doesn’t really enter your system. You don’t really appreciate the enormity of what you have,” Pachauri said.

    The most CO 2 in 650,000 years. You don’t really appreciate the enormity of what you have. Oh yes I do. What Pachauri was talking about was the latest report that Antarctica is melting rather fast in some parts and combined with Greenland well if you own a house on the coast sell it if you can. You still have a few years. The Earth has no idea what left right middle is no idea. The Earth in many ways is alive and is always trying to find a balance. Well there is still time to reduce CO 2 levels before the Earth finds a new balance that I don’t think includes Humans.

  10. messianicdruid said on January 17th, 2008 at 11:41am #

    “When the government does nothing and allows capitalism and racism to run rampant like you desire that infringes on MY liberties.”

    These things are actions carried out by individuals. Asking or expecting the gobberment to intervene for you gives the gooberment validity, and will turn that validity upon you when requested to intervene by someone else. You are the empower-er of Authoritarianism, not me.

  11. Keith Kritselis said on January 17th, 2008 at 1:22pm #

    As a lifelong, blue collar, union-supporting democrat I’m donating and voting for Ron Paul not because I support his ideas on abortion or immigration, or a host of other social programs, I don’t. I support Ron Paul because he’s the only candidate raising fundamental questions about how our country is governed. Where does the money come from? What is is spent on? What should the federal governments role in our daily lives be?

    There is a basic truth to any organization, the larger the size and influence, the greater potential for waste, fraud, and corruption. I believe in the ability for government to do good, to level the playing field, to lend a helping hand to those in need, but only at the state and local level. Some of the best ideas in healthcare, education, and the environment are coming from the state level.

    We need to as a nation start this dialog, because in it’s absence, those with money, power, and influence will win the day.

    One last thing, I’m tired of Ron Paul critics who make it sound like on day one of a Ron Paul presidency, he would just wave a magic pen and Roe v. Wade would be over turned, all the Mexicans would be deported, the IRS would be shut down, and the civil rights act would be repealed. The President does not have that power. Dick Cheney wants to be a dictator, it hasn’t happened, because we still have a constitution.

    Ron Paul believes in smaller government and I believe him. I’m not sure what most of the other candidates believe in, and I’m not sure I would believe them if they told me.

  12. HR said on January 17th, 2008 at 3:24pm #

    Haven’t the wingnuts got enough places on the web of their own to frequent and belch their bile? Why do they insist on bothering the rest of us? Jerks.

  13. UtopiaTom said on January 17th, 2008 at 3:52pm #


    How can you tout the “Teamster-Turtle” alliance but disregard Ron Paul’s movement today? There are plenty of teamsters/labor folks who agree with Paul, right or wrong, that their jobs are being stolen by “illegals”. While I think his immigration stance is ass-backward in most regards, at least he’s trying to talk about what he thinks is driving the problem, from NAFTA on down. He may call to deny immigrants access to healthcare (totally inhumane), but I’m certain there are more than a few labor folks who would agree with him.

    Ron Paul opposes the WTO, NAFTA and any government-type body that seeks to regulate/manipulate markets. He thinks it’s bad for consumers and workers alike. Many libertarians were at the WTO Seattle showdown. He may not care much about environmental laws (unless they affect private property), but at least he’s standing against these guys. I can’t quantify this, but it’s my guess that plenty of the people you speak highly of from the building of the left in 2000 (I think there is good reason to believe that Nader’s candidacy had little to do with the type of left politics the ISO espouses, as Nader is totally pro-market) are the same types excited about Paul this year.

    Paul’s demographic is young, as the exit polls are showing. Mostly under 30 and many new to politics. I doubt that all, or even the majority share all of his positions, from the gold standard to immigration, but they do share his anti-government tendencies. In fact, I think he’d have more people on board, and more voter turnout, if his campaign hadn’t decided to highlight his core-Republican issues like immigration and abortion. Not only does he have bad positions, he didn’t even get out the vote in New Hampshire like they had expected.

    As for the alliance you speak of “when optimism prevailed and solidarity grew” during the WTO protests, I think the antiwar left ought to consider the same sort of alliance now. And why not? It is quite similar, even if you don’t want to admit it. This doesn’t mean we have to hug Ron Paul, or even vote for him (although I don’t think it hurts anything but empire to do so). But it does mean we have to, on the tactical ground level, reach out to his supporters.

    The ISO may not feel comfortable with this sort of thing. If I remember correctly, many didn’t feel all that great with the alliance you give cred to back in ’99. If labor and environmentalists can come together, certainly good lefties and sane libertarians can too. But perhaps when one is stuck in a Marxist prism, it is hard to get past the “leader” mentality or on-the-ground issues like alliance building.

    Or perhaps this is about something much bigger, as I think every anti-Ron Paul article on this site was written by an ISO patron. Is the ISO leadership just scared that their followers, all those who peddle their papers on street corners, are going to flock to Paul’s side of the political matrix?

    Sharon, self-preservation will never end a war, or build a real movement. But I guess you are trying to “build the left” not end imperialism.

  14. C Villarreal said on January 17th, 2008 at 4:00pm #

    “If you would not personally {here’s your problem} go and take money from your neighbor, {at gunpoint} to pay for what you feel you are entitled to, then don’t ask the gooberment to do it on your behalf.”

    I certainly think there are millions of people on the planet who are fully justified in demanding money from, maybe not their neighbors, but people in positions of power who use their power to exploit and get rich. The only problem, those same people would come after us with armed law enforcement or soldiers or cluster bombs.

    This is why civil rights, human rights, public benefits, etc often come not from asking the government to do anything, but demanding it.

  15. Cawdor said on January 17th, 2008 at 6:04pm #

    “In contrast to Kucinich, Ron Paul’s lone appeal to the left is his vocal opposition to the Iraq war.”

    The author neglects that Dr. Paul opposes the Patriot Act and any legislative overeach by the Congress and the President that would suborn our inalienable rights as defined by the 1st 10 Amendments (Th eBill of Rights) as stated in the Constitution.

    The Democratic candidates all support suborning these rights and push the agenda that rights derive for the government which is incorrect at the least and arrogant at the worst

    “Paul has dodged accusations about his past murky association with an assortment of noxious right-wing newsletters. The January 8 edition of The New Republic contains an exposé by assistant editor James Kirchick that documents the bigotry contained in newsletters dating back to the 1970s–all “published under a banner containing Paul’s name.””

    Again the author omits the other side of the story and does not state that Dr. Paul has accepted the moral responsibility for those papers but has also stated he did not write them and that the evidence presented by the author she cites does not have anyone credited for these “typed” newsletters.

    The author also neglects that the Austin-based chapter of the NAACP has stated that Dr. Paul is not a racist in the 20+ years they have dealt with him.

    The author also neglects that the libertarism, that Dr. Paul espouses believes that the labeling of minorities (as done by the author and the Democratic Party in general) is racist in itself since the only minority that should be defended by the government is the individual and that each individual is entitled to the same freedoms as the next individual

    The pushed ideology of class warfare as pushed by the Democrats is standard play book actions by Socialism which endeavors to control the people by pitting them against each other in terms of class , religion, ethnicity where as Libertarianism is all about the individual and how each must be treated equal

    “is opposition to immigration is linked to his opposition to basic welfare provisions for U.S. born workers.”

    Here is the key difference on why progressives do not like Dr. Paul Progressives believe that your sweat and labor should be taken from you and given to those that government (not you) have decided need help.

    The choice is taken away from the individual through the threat of force. Progressives love the abuse of government against the individual to promote their class warfare because they firmly believe they know better then you on how to use your money and that the obligation to help one’s fellow man should be mandatory under penalty of incarceration and forfeiture without say from the individual.

    This is taxation w/o representation and our Founding Fathers created this country on the foundation of fighting against such heavy handed government abuse.

    “Opponents of U.S. imperialism should also take note that Paul’s anti-immigration policy specifically targets Mexicans crossing the U.S.’s Southern border and immigrants hailing from so-called “terrorist” [Arab and Muslim] countries”

    The author again neglects to mention that Dr. Paul represents a Texas district which lies near that border and has seen the havoc created by illegal immigration in this district in the forms of school and hospital closing and a drain on the county finances when faced with the socialist agenda pushed by those democratic candidates in Washington who cannot even provide for those people they rule over in the District of Columbia.

    The author also neglect to mention that Dr. Paul has stated publicly in debates, in news interviews, and on TV (The View being one example) that he feels that immigrants are being used as scapegoats because the federal government does not want to confront the subsidization of illegal immigration it promotes.

    The quotes the author uses expound on this because Dr. Paul identifies the party in the wrong (The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT). Without big government the socialist views of the Democrats cannot stay in place

    Dr. Paul wants the rule of law and the removal of theses subsidies (ie your tax money at work) while the democratic candidates want more of your money to fuel this outrageous violation of US law.

    “On the contrary, by advocating single-issue voting, Paul’s left-wing supporters are endangering the survival of anything resembling a coherent U.S. left”

    The only thing threatening the left is a lack of spine shown by the party when they failed the electorate in 2006 by not implementing change which has become the issue for this election and why Paul has made the progress he has.

    Had the Democrats stopped the war, rolled back the Patriot Act, kept to the fiscal conservatism they stated in their 1st 100 days then Ron Paul would not have had as much base to draw support from.

    By like the Republicans, the Democrats have shown themselves to be the status quo and that there is no real difference between the parties (hence no change despite the demand for it)

    Both parties are big government (ie taxpayer extortionists), war-mongerers, fascists (when it comes to civil liberties) and corrupt of any ethical or moral principles.

    Hence the rise of Ron Paul, a 10 term Congressman with 30+ years of history of never wavering in his message, does not accept the pension offered at taxpayer expense to congress, never accepted medicaid and medicare in his private practice, never voted to raise taxes, and upholds the law of the land that both parties disregard as anachronistic ie the Constitution.

    The choices for voters comes down to this

    Vote Democrat and get more war, more big government, more corporatism (medical Ind. Cplx),less of your pay to keep and more intrusion on how you live, eat, raise your kids, breathe and love

    Vote Republican and get more war, more big government, more corporatism (military Ind. Cplx),less of your pay to keep and more intrusion on how you live, eat, raise your kids, breathe and love

    Vote Ron Paul, for no more war, less government, more money for you to keep and the government leaving you alone.

    To me the choice is clear … Ron Paul

    In Ron Paul’s world, the socialist is accepted and protected

    In Sharon’s world, the libertarian is a threat and must be removed

    When it comes down to that logic, Dr Paul is more tolerant then Ms. Smith’s world. Why should we listen to Sharon’s diatribe of class warfare and intolerance than Ron Paul’s message of peace and tolerance?

  16. dan elliott said on January 17th, 2008 at 6:54pm #

    Sharon Smith: thanks again for another excellent expose of Wingnutism.

    Deadbeat & HR: thanks for pithy comments.

    Libertarians? Republicans trying to act “intelligent”. Hohum. Wish they’d go post their nonsense on their own sites.

  17. Cawdor said on January 17th, 2008 at 6:58pm #

    “Libertarians? Republicans trying to act “intelligent”. Hohum. Wish they’d go post their nonsense on their own sites”

    Great example of intolerance by the status quo.

    “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

  18. Deadbeat said on January 17th, 2008 at 7:14pm #

    “Capitalism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is creating misery for the majority.”

  19. Cawdor said on January 17th, 2008 at 7:20pm #

    If it weren’t for capitalism, the socialist would not have the luxury to preach its failings.

    Try preaching in Cuba, NK or China and see the results.

    Each one in turn embraces capitalism at some form to stave off social unrest. So here it is in America and the disenfranchised, the oppressed, the alinated and the persecuted find their voice in the words of Ron Paul as the US wanders down the failed road of entitlements and forced social behavior.

    The words of liberty, free markets, the rule of law and the rights of the individual

    Without these words, America would have been possible.

    History bears witness and shows the facts.

  20. MisiekM said on January 17th, 2008 at 7:34pm #

    It seems to me socialist world is more of a utopia than libertarian. I grew up in communist Poland that was subsidized by American government. You demand rights to everything from the government, and you will get it, and when you go out into the streets and protest the scraps and crumbles from the elite’s table and get beaten to a bloody pulp by the servants of the state you will have your socialism,as I have seen it with my own eyes.10 years old, but threw some rocks at gov’s goons too. It just might be that there is a law of universe, that the greater concentration of power, the worse ruthless merciless scum it attracts. You want socialism, establish a socialist club, all members hand over their posessions, income, and split it evenly between yourselves. Want to give illigal immigrants healthcare, buy one a policy and pay for it. Want something done, do it yourself. I give to charities because they are efficient, unlike the government. As an immigrant and a citizen I am angry at some of my immigrant friends, because they do not care for this country, most know it is a police state, how soon to be fascist or communist who knows; they don’t care to get health coverage because it has to be provided ( at least emergency), if they can file taxes and come out looking soo poor they get welfare benefits they are happy to screw the government. Most illegals I know don’t give a crock for the U.S. but for the dollar, and now that it is becoming worthless they are moving to E.U. Rats leave a sinking ship first, right? What about all the people (not many in Europe as before) who stand in lines, apply, wait years to immigrate here legally? As far as left and right, were the founding generation not liberals? Now liberal is a communist, and true liberal conservative? Ron Paul is the only candidate who will follow the Constitution in the light of ideals this nation was founded upon (however imperfect the Founders were) and has moral character and integrity not to lead us but to be the President of the federal government. We are to lead our own selves, and for most people that just might be too much responsibity and burden. We are constantly manipulated into creating needs for the gov’s intervention. Ron Paul is right, we have to take the advice of the Founders, that is my impression after reading Ben Franklin’s autobiography.

  21. Max Shields said on January 17th, 2008 at 7:41pm #

    I think there is something to the idea of getting away from the left/right spectrum. It is a relic of the French Revolution not because it is from the 18th Century, but because we are confronting issues that the corporatism, globalization, and unsustainable growth has wrought that never existed in the 18th Century.

    It is really far too simplistic to think that libertarianism is represented by Ron Paul (though he hits most of the libertarian notes). There are, after all, Libertarian Socialist Greens. A synthesis between a growing libertarian movement and green movement could yield the next powerful party. After all isn’t that what gave birth to the Republican Party (a party very different than the uber-rightist of today).

    The merger of real Libertarian (not the faux Ayn Rand brand) with Green values is really not far fetched. How many listen to the deeply conservative conversations on and almost forget that many on there are not hard progressives but true blue conservative libertarians? I know I do.

  22. messianicdruid said on January 17th, 2008 at 7:45pm #

    “Haven’t the wingnuts got enough places on the web of their own to frequent and belch their bile? Why do they insist on bothering the rest of us? Jerks.”

    You must confront debilitating lies where you find them.

  23. Allan Stellar said on January 17th, 2008 at 8:02pm #


    That was quite an excellent, and thoughtful, post! Cheers!

  24. Max Shields said on January 17th, 2008 at 8:09pm #

    I would add to the thought experiment about a union between libertarian and greens, that there are clear points of differences which would need to be reconciled if either are to become a force in an American transformation.

    Greens, for instance, hold the value of human scale or local over large scale and distant government intervention. While this seems to coincide with libertarian notion of minimal government, libertarians tend toward the notion that the individual trumps collective. This is clearly antithetical to the Greens’ notion of community. But not so far as not to be reconcilable. There are a number of other cases – taxes which could be readily reconciled. It’s not perfect, it’s coalition building.

    While I wouldn’t throw my lot in with the Ron Paul crowd – given the sharper message against free trade that Kucinch provides – it doesn’t make sense to ignore that sense that if Ron and Dennis can find common ground on a number of issues then there may be a way to make this work in a more effective and substantive way.

  25. Allan Stellar said on January 17th, 2008 at 8:33pm #


    Another excellent post. Thanks for your contribution! Libertarians have a difficult time with most communal values.

    Now that Dennis Kucinich has been treated like the red-headed, step child of the Democratic Party—- perhaps Green Libertarians and like minded Kucinichiacs should explore a partnership?

  26. Deadbeat said on January 18th, 2008 at 12:38am #

    I think the political designation have usefulness and meaning.
    Here’s a link to a film that explains why…


  27. Don Hawkins said on January 18th, 2008 at 5:42am #

    Good debate on the pros and cons of how humans look at themselves and the World. One little problem we are running out of time to slow climate change. You don’t really appreciate the enormity of what you have. Again to go after this little problem will change the whole ball game. The other night on Glenn Beck he got total freaked out about California wanting to put a box in peoples homes to control the temperature. Do not change your thermostat we are in total control. People don’t get it. To do that does nothing. A total change is needed to slow this problem down. A mass effort in most countries not seen since World War Two and probably harder. I know nobody wants to think about this but we pass a point with climate change and it is out of our hands and how then might humans look at themselves and the World. There is still time and we have the technology now to do this. It looks like the next two years will be about the same still hot and anything but the weather we were lucky to have for Hundreds of years then the temperature starts to go up again. Still time but remember forget about new cars or houses at first like World War Two except this time the way we produce energy total focus and that my friends is what many people can’t seem to get there heads around. You don’t really appreciate the enormity of what you have.

  28. Mycos Williams said on January 18th, 2008 at 7:18am #

    This talk of doing away with the left-right spectrum as though it were some arbitrary designation beaased on nothing material or empiracally measurable is almost as naive as the post that tells us fungi have no other purpose than to creep around underground bring death and decay wherever opportunity presents itself.

    First, the left-right spectrum is taken directly from the anthropological practice of differentiating cultures based on how equally each society distributes and allows access among all members to the wealth (food, clothing, tools, etc) and status or rank attainable. The more egalitarian these things are, the further to the left they are placed. With cultures that purely hereditary access to high social status yet still see to it that goods are not hoarded away from those that can use them, then these cultures moves towards the middle. Finally, those where both wealth and power are given unfair access to fewer and fewer people within the population ( class/caste societies) they are placed fully to the right of center on the spectrum. So given the above, Capitalism is ALWAYS somewhere to the right, with things like universal (socialized) healthcare or education moving them closer to the left — due to the equal access given to all, and not out of an arbitrary distinction people choose to label themselves or others.

    Second, the idea that fungi are all saprophytes (live off decaying organic matter) is simply not true. In fact, in any given forest, at least 90% of the mushrooms seen will be the fruit-bodies of mycorrhizal fungi. These are fungi that have have formed a symbiotic relationship with trees and shrubs, but many small flowering forbs (like orchids) are 100% dependent on a fungus for their own germination and growth.
    They are essential to a healthy ecosystem with virtually every tree known coming to rely on these fungi for nutrition and water transfer back to their own limited root system. Without them they will be unable to compete for the nutrients, water and sunlight that they bring to the roots of trees that have been “infected”.

    So knock off your Libertarian = liberty crap and accept that your just confused conservatives who think that your because your governmnet is corrupt, all govs. are corrupt…or because the only Muslims you know hit the WTC so therefore all Muslims are terrorists. Same thinking. If the government has been corrupted by corporate lobyists, why on earth would you think the CEO doing the corrupting is going to give you a better shake.

    Mussolini said that something like “the perfect fascist state would be one where the industrial and political elite were indistinguishable from one another”. He was a fascist of course, and yet here you are saying that an America that’s run by the business elite will somehow be better than theirs. We know corporations have a clear clear propensity for taking as much as they can while giving back as little as possible, yet that’s somehow a “good thing”? Insane!

  29. Chris Crass said on January 18th, 2008 at 8:01am #

    Ron Paul is a facist midget. End of story.

  30. Fred said on January 18th, 2008 at 11:07am #

    What a laughable article. Ron Paul is what this country needs not more of the same crap from the left or right. However unless the Senate is in majority on one side or the other, expect gridlock as usual, regardless of who gets elected. Unless radical change is made in government, spending and taxes, the republic wont survive another 10 years. It will only survive as long as foreigners continue to loan us money to finance our consumptive lifestyles and government.

    There, I said more truth in paragraph that 5000 words in the preceding article.

  31. Max Shields said on January 18th, 2008 at 5:57pm #

    Mycos Williams

    The problem with left/right is how we come to rely on these dichotomies has if they have an objective existence. I’m not saying that they never have a place, but we know that over time the ideological representations shift all over the place. They become distorting schisms rather than providing fresh looks at problems – particularly root causes – and opportunities to resolve these outside of these ideological bents.

    It’s the old saw “when all you have is a hammer as a solution, every problem is a nail”. It’s a big reason for our ineptness at solving problem when we really know what the solutions are but they don’t fit into left/right schisms (including our economic crisis). That makes left/right very dangerous to survival at all levels.

  32. Max Shields said on January 18th, 2008 at 6:34pm #

    When you look at a Global Corporatist – the 21st Century fascist – who are we talking about. What is the political compass for this creature?

    Let’s say we have a urban community owned corporation that supports buy local, and hires primarily local people, is in fact owned by the community and or workers – no need for unions because management and employee are one and the same – voila!!! No need for binding arbitration or divisive conflict. What to make of this. Suppose a new fleet of flexible transport is started with the genius of some local high school graduate entrepreneurs who reduce the carbon foot print, eliminate massive infrastructure costs to the community, offer a flexible, convenient freedom from fossil poluting autos and congestion, and parking issues; hiring and servicing locals, who then buy the business making it once again a locally owned business serving locals with most of the currency kept in the community, thus creating community wealth, producing vibrant urban and city region with import/replacement continuously at work, a recession proof, self-sustaining, self-sufficient democracy – grass-roots gone wild! What’s more it unleashes the power of creativity through sustainable green manufacturing, manages real local currency on the basis of sane import/export policies (again local).

    And what is this – socialism? capitalism? right? left?

  33. Max Shields said on January 18th, 2008 at 6:37pm #

    Today’s corporate globalist – fascist if you will – is a pathology. Pathologies are not ideologies. We must eliminate pathologies where ever they crop up, and replace them with healthy solutions.

  34. Gary "Mycos" Williams said on January 19th, 2008 at 11:06am #

    First, I cannot agree enough with your last post. I realize it isn’t “scholarly” to designate broad cultural phenomenas as being akin to an individual’s psychopathology, but I see a consistent set of characteristics demonstrated by far-right individuals that would be considered pathological but for the sheer numbers of those who display them. I’m thinking of the paranoia, militarism, and lack of empathy for the plight of others, frequently accompanied by a dismissive attitude regarding facts, evidence and reason that allows Christian creationism, Muslim and Zionist extremism to flourish even in the 21st century. I’ve been developing a socio-biological regarding how much of our social behaviour is guided by our genes, how much by the environment, and what impact the Neolithic Revolution had on a species that had evolved in a social environment very, very different from the be we now see ourselves facing in the aftermath of our move from the H-Gatherer groups we knew for millions of years to the world that agricultures invention so quickly turned on it’s head.

    But more to your point (hey..I take whatever chance I can to put that idea out there, fishing for feedback ), specifically “but we know that over time the ideological representations shift all over the place. They become distorting schisms rather than providing fresh looks at problems – particularly root causes – and opportunities to resolve these outside of these ideological bents”, yes, I agree with that as well. But I see the solution as education on what the actual differences are that delineate the ideological left from right, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater as you seem to be suggesting. I think an early, grade-school teaching of what their essential differences are would go a very long way in resolving many of the problems we now face. Propagandists, left and right, easily tar opponents with these labels hoping to raise the spector of either Stalin’s or Hitlers excesses because the reasons for designating Stalin/left and Hitler/right are left until college entry, which by then sees students with heads already hopelessly muddled. But if they knew why Hitler and Stalin are natural ideological enemies, how the spectrum reflects the egality which each cultures economic model manages to dispurse it’s wealth, with power and wealth being intrinsically bound to other….each following the other in lockstep unless a conscious effort is made to redistribute it more equitably. The Potlatch of PNW natives is a well-known instance of a societies recognition of the problems inherent in hoarding with steps taken to alleviate it. But again, I digress.

    An understanding of the left/right social dynamic would go a long way in understanding why the governments of capitalist economies seldom practice what they preach. It lays bare the reasoning behind why, during the Spanish Civil War, we saw the Church, the monarchists, the military, and the industrial elite the world over siding with Franco….a fascist. It comes as a shock to those who don’t understand this dichotomy in mans thinking to learn that Shell fuel oil filled the tanks of the Messershmitts that bombed Quernica. I won’t even try to to explain the potential impact that the the trade in fine Valencian oranges may have had on world history. The significance of the alliances formed during that war are lost on most. But for those who do get it, there’s a massive Picasso hanging over the main assembly hall of the UN. Let’s just say that it’s the reason the Lincoln Brigades had to volunteer and pay their way over to fight alongside the democratic Spanish forces (“Republicans” ironically ) who were already fighting alongside the communist and Anarchists (it was a political party there). It was a futile effort that ended in 1939…the very year Hitler decided things were looking so good he’d push on into Poland. Gee, I wonder why?

    No, I realize it seems somewhat cliche’ to use “class-conflict” as a motivating factor for wars, but the fact is that most of the centuries worst conflicts have precisely that laying at their core. So “left-right” is by no means an arbitrary distinction, although it has been so muddied up by pseudo-intellectuals and propagandists that one could reasonably think that. But it is primarily a measure of wealth, where wealth is almost always a measure of status, and both are a measure of ones class. Teach that to the young and remind them often, and I fully believe that a lot of the BS we see coming from our own or other leaders would be recognized for the self-serving crap that it is.

    Oh. And btw. I am not a communist, as I’m sure many have already decided. I simply believe that some things are too important to be left in the hands of profiteers while others are to complicated or individualistic to be left to mindless bureaucrats. Like many things it life, it seems that a well-thought out mix of socialism and market-forces would be infinitely superior to the either/or thinking that mars the thinking of the conservative extremists at both ends.


  35. agnostic said on January 19th, 2008 at 1:20pm #

    Patriot Act. Military Commisions Act. Perpetual war for perpetual peace. Protect America Act.

    The revolution simply signifies that some republicans are waking up just like many democrats woke up in the ’60s. [small cap r,d intentional]

    Let’s wish them better luck, but don’t count on it.

  36. Gary "Mycos" Williams said on January 19th, 2008 at 5:18pm #

    You guys missed the best video over there.
    The Century of the Self

  37. Mycos Williams said on January 20th, 2008 at 12:59pm #

    Left/right DO have an objective meaning, and one that…if it were taught to people early so that it can’t be so easily manipulated later on by propagandists, would show the linkage between such seemingly unrelated ideas as monarchist states and capitalist economies. What they share in common is opportunity and advantages in life that are not enjoyed by all individuals upon their birth. A “class”-based culture IOW. For that reason alone they are both placed on the right side of the spectrum. It would make clear the reason why Communism uses the same root as “communal” or “community”, why the left contains anti-elitist sentiments as it’s most basic, fundemental characteristic. It instructs us as to why the question “Did Stalin betray communism?” is presented to as an old standard of the philosophy genre.

    The left-right spectrum is extremely revealing if it is taught properly. So the talk here of eliminating it is an idea that I strongly suspect finds it roots in yet another deliberate attempt by would-be tyrants to silence academia for the truths they hold and the authority with which they are able to speak and challenge the rhetoric used to gain and hold power.

  38. Harmoon said on January 20th, 2008 at 11:20pm #

    Sharon raises a valid and important point. We should not choose the candidate based on single issue. But on the other hand we have to be able to prioritize and categorize what issues are more important than others. The main question is whether dismantling US Empire is as the same gravity as the issue of pro life/choice, or even capitalism/socialism within US? Also do we really expect a country that has engaged in more than 200 wars of aggression from its creation, and is basically created upon dispossessing the natives, saved its core by importing black slaves, and has oppressed every labor movement (we haven’t forgotten Reagan and Airport issue) could be changed with one election and through one suitable president? I don’t think so. It will need an ongoing revolution (hopefully not as bloody as French Revolution) and I think Ron Paul is in the correct direction. Gravel and Kucinich have had equally strong and progressive messages as well. Unfortunately the Democratic party has been structurally occupied by the Israeli firsters that in every occasion use the innocent aspirations of equality and justice to manipulate US into accepti9ng a foreign policy no matter how deleterious to its own, and only to the benefit of Israel. I think this is the main issue that has pulled the teeth out of so called left and turned it into mourners for bald eagle or “only condemning Darfur killings”, and not the ethnic cleansing of Israelis, and constantly using “jurisdiction” in what should be fought against and what should be left alone.

    If we agree the US as an Imperialist country is the most dangerous entity to the global peace, and is the leader of western world in bringing poverty to the other countries and is the single promoter of Israel as Apartheid state, the issues of labor rights, pro choice vs. pro life, and capitalism vs. socialism fade out and become unimportant.

    What is applied as “left” or “progressive” in many occasions, is skewed somehow to accepting the status que and dominant thoughts (that racism against Jews and Black is s in but racism against Arabs and Muslims is ok ) and does not follow the rules of universality.

    What the pro-Israelis under cover of “left” or “progressive” mostly insinuate is we should keep the Empire because some countries (specifically Middle Eastern) are inhabited by creature which are not as human as others and so we don’t have to be too much against Empire. But in the mean time the “kosher” inequalities such as disenfranchising gays, lesbians ; or polarization of society to rich and poor can be criticized (mildly and not to the point that changes the status).

    I have known myself as “left” for more than 20 years and what I see in the “left movement” in US is their lack of capability in self criticism to the core. What I only hear is repeating the same mantra that “left has to move” just like poking a tired and old horse.

    One main reason of demise of “left” in my humble opinion is that those who aspiring social equality and justice are following incomplete models of Europe do not understand that the phenomenon in the history only occurs once and can not be repeated. If Sweden and Norway are what they are is because US is what it is, all as subcategory of a bigger system with their own roles and paths.

    True Progressives would serve their ideals far more by going back to the basics and define the US not only as a polarized and also Caste like society with impenetrable hierarchy, but also as the police of the world. The bully spills some crumbs not only in satellite countries but also on her own poor people, so the class structure of the country can not be changed until this flow of wealth (in form of looting and workforce i.e. sweatshops etc.) continues from outside, and by wars, violence and intimidati

  39. Mycos said on January 26th, 2008 at 8:40pm #

    When I first saw a campign video of his over at YouTube, I was indeed quite astonished at how progressive his ideas seemed to be.

    But a question that anyone with a triple digit IQ not suffering RWA personality disorder* would surely ask themselves is, “This is very unusual….so what’s going on here? Conservative right-wingers simply do not become progressive intellectuals in the short time it takes to re-tool for the next election cycle. And yet, there he is. And not only is he there, but he’s speaking to grassroots cybernauts…the very people that GOP conservatives so predictably shunned whenever change comes around. Could it be that their original failure to recognize the internet’s use as a political tool — a failure the more progressive Dems at kept rubbing in their faces—was being used in a calculated manner to split the vote of their opponents?

    First, a little background on RWA (right-wing authoritarians)

    There is a strong correlation between right-wingers and poor reasoning or logic skills.
    They also tend to believe whatever an authority figure says without question, which is a good thing for them because they also have a harder time than the rest of us understand any answer they might get. Most bizarrely, they don’t give more weight to facts or evidence when determining their lives next move… or, god forbid…a defendants guilt or innocence. They will accept anything that fits or confirms a worldview that features very high scores for paranoia, militancy and religious fundamentalism. These are the people who still refuse to accept that the claims made by Bush allowing him to pursue his policy of attacking Iraq were deliberate lies. Indeed, many belive that WMDs were found, that Saddam WAS behind the WTC, even knowing that Bush denied the link himself.
    It’s obvious how easily such personalities can be manipulated into doing virtually anything the clever politician wishes of them since they give every indication of actually preferring to let others determine what their own thoughts should be on virtually everything.

    But MOTR and left-leaning persons thankfully do not suffer the same need to have someone else do all the heavy thinking for them. This is best seen by the high incidence of RWA in para-military orgs /and/ , quite obviously when you stop to think about it….fundamentalist religions. Both discourage any thinking that isn’t part of the doctrine it’s authorities feed the submissives.

    So this leaves the obvious question of where it was that Paul hoped to get non-GOP, MOTR types who would still take what he said uncritically simply because he was saying all the right things, remaining blind to his political pedigree ? Where was he going to find people who have the same trouble reasoning things out on their own? Who else, but the 9/11 “truth” crowd!!

    Their ability to believe a theory that flies in the face of common sense not to mention overwhelming scientific consensus is no less bizarre than the hard-core Bush believers who refuse to accept that their intellectual avatar was wrong. And libertarians, although most have rejected Bush, they still carry many of the same convictions as RWAs. Indeed Bob Jones, the man whose PhD gave the explosives theory the authority that the Milgram experiment exposed in man.
    And accept it they did…with the film ‘Loose Change’ fleshing out a hypothesis that Jones admits he has no firm evidence for, despite his minions claims otherwise. They simply will not accept things that run contrary to their belief that they alone know the TRUTH, a trait that also runs very deep in high RWA. Self-righteousness is more common than their hypocrisy…which should give you an idea of how deep it runs.

    So the films hundreds of errors of fact, faulty logic, and deliberate distortions of the medium itself, goes on being quoted as Gospel, despite the glaring inconsistencies like the one where Moses somehow describes his own death in a biblical chapter that the laity insists was written by Moses…thus giving rise to his having acted as God’s ghostwriter, the first recored mention of such a thing, and the start of a narrative that ends up a thousand years later being recorded mistakenly as the Father (god), Son (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost-Writer (Moses as the Bible-writer…the Bible being the key to the other two’s success as religious icons.)
    But back to our hapless libertarian RWAs who, without a President to follow are wandering about like ninja, too chicken to commit sepeku but so desperate to erase their shame that they are buying whatever an authority figure is selling that gives their lives purpose again. Never mind that this one already belongs to a RWA sect that now exists as a legal, if not openly transparent fraud, religion. Now would it matter if they found out Jones has worked many, many years trying to get more energy out of a system than is needed to run it….the Holy Grail of Perpetual Energy in other words. In fact it was none other than Jones himself who coined the term “Cold Fusion”.

    Pons, Flieschmann, and Jones: RWA PhDs

    “Ron Paul: The Perpetual Energy Candidate!”

  40. Harmoon said on January 29th, 2008 at 1:41am #

    the argument of Mycos is quite transparent and is usually done by pro Zionists, a sophistry of accusation and intimidation by harsh word to paralyze the reader to avert from a notion.
    The pro Zionists are quite afraid of message of anti-Imperialism by Ron Paul and Libertarians.
    Mycos this site is for enlightment, choose Jerusalem post and Fox news for your next mud throwing.

  41. Gary Williams said on January 31st, 2008 at 3:46pm #

    Pro-Zionist? You couldn’t be more wrong. These are just two of the blogs I’ve set up to collect information on the hijacking of the US military by AIPAC/AEI and PNAC that the corporate media won’t touch. But your post does show the kind of “Us vs Them” thinking that typifies the right-wing mindset, which only advances the point I was making that much further.

    Check this one for a pro-Zionist bias…LOL.

  42. Harmoon said on February 5th, 2008 at 1:17am #

    The position that you are making counts. Opposing indiscriminately is not equal to be on the progressive side. It needs a delicate understanding of the cross section of the time and forces. Being “anti” something wihtout providing a positive alternative in your discussion is a de facto support of status quo.

    You are confusing oversimplification which is “Us vs. them” with right wing mindedness. Interestingly you presume since I am opposing ditribe against Ron Paul, I should be a “right Winger” which is your little version of Us vs. them:).

    The self rightousness and arrogance could be anyones attitude including the self proclaimed left. The discussion which does not bother to prove a point and just smears in this particular case is the job of Pro-Zionist. If you dont see yourself that way you might have confusion about your role and identity, need to work on it.

  43. Fauz said on February 7th, 2008 at 12:27pm #

    I support Ron Paul. I am looking for someone who is transparent about their vision. Someone who doesn’t speak in soundbites or curries media favor. Ron Paul is the only candidate out there who hasn’t been “bought” and who has been outspoken about his views against the neocons and our imperialistic foreign policy for years. He takes on issues no one else (who is still in the running) will touch. And for the most part, he is right. I don’t think Paul’s anti-war stance is the only issue to recommend him. Shouldn’t we stand up to our authoritarian government? Aren’t liberty and freedom ideals worth standing up for? The question is, is there any other candidate in the public view speaking against the establishment?

  44. Gary Williams said on February 7th, 2008 at 11:33pm #

    Ron Paul is a right-winger. Period. Apparently you have been listening only to each other without doing any original research on his past positions. If you really think that he has suddenly changed 180 degrees from his Patrick Buchanan/Ron

  45. Gary Williams said on February 7th, 2008 at 11:45pm #

    Ronald Reagen days, then you are just as gullible as the people who still believe there’s WMDs out in the Iraqi desert somewhere.

    But the point is moot. Ron Paul got the fringe votes from the “conspiracy theory” fringe fanatics only. As one pundit put it “The kids like him!”. You got 4 years until the next election. Grow up.

    And Harmoon? …

    “Being “anti” something wihtout providing a positive alternative in your discussion is a de facto support of status quo”.

    Really? Care to explain the logic behind that one? It sounds good. But it makes about as much sense as 90% of the quips Rumsfeld so dearly loved to ply the press-corps with when he had a full head of steam.

  46. Harmoon said on February 14th, 2008 at 12:21am #

    Gary Williams you are a Zionist supporter in disguise. Your vehement opposition against pat Buchannan and Ron Paul comes from the pain that Zionists feel from spread of those ideas. Hide your head in the sand of mass media and throw muds as “right winger”, conspiracy theory, etc. You are not left or right you are prowar fifth element with a dictionary under your arm and bunch of meaningless words. You are not alone they are a bunch like you who hide behind vague flag of left and attack others as right but when find it necessary become “right” and attack the left. The bunch is not totally unpredictable, it follows a trend: the loyalty is with Israeli Likud and anything that is opposes the influence of Zionists in US has to be badmouthed one way or the other.

    Keep up the good work, the more you talk and show yourself enlightens the others.

  47. Gary Williams said on February 14th, 2008 at 1:29pm #

    Go to David Whore-owitz’s website (Front Page Magazine) and search for my (Mycos) posts. That should tell you how completely astray your conspiracy-muddled mind has led you. I have challenged his propaganda directly for many years.
    Then go to a list called Newsroom-L and look at the archives there. They go back many, many years. Once having read even a few of the yet you still believe me to be a Zionist, then all I can say is “seek help”.

  48. Harmoon said on February 16th, 2008 at 8:26pm #

    I think you have or soon will have a mojor identity crisis. As I see, you define who you are not by the stands that you take but by who hates you most. It just doesnt make sense.

    Define “conspiracy theorist”? Define “right wing” and “left wing”. Fighting with “Horewitz” alone does not mean that much if you are yourself fighting with any voice of reason with the same tactics of Horowirz.

    The logical conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job and probably with support of several fractions of the governmetn in this country and Israel is “conspiracy theory” and condemned to be rejected without any reasoning? The idea that Pro-Isreal Zionist are pushing this country into war after war (i.e. Iraq and now Iran) is conspiracy theory and doomed to be rejected and rediculed?

    Keep your history for your resume and employment, what counts is your position right now and here, not how long you have trashed someone who admittedly is an icon of absurdity.

  49. hamoon said on February 19th, 2008 at 4:50pm #

    For those who attck others and alble them reactionary but themselves reject ideas without scrutiny:

  50. Juh said on March 5th, 2008 at 7:30pm #

    Ron Paul’s success is not just a result of his anti-war view, as you say. The main concern among voters in primary exit polls is the economy. Ron Paul’s economics are superior to any candidates, Dem or Rep. His economic ideology permeates through almost every stance he has- many of which you call ‘racist’ and ‘anti-immigrant.’

    So it comes down to this, with such monumental federal debt, the last thing people want (liberals included) is another spendthrift president coupled with a Dem. majority in Congress to aid in more deficit spending. THAT is the slippery slope which will end America as we know it.