The Left Gatekeepers and Tax Exempt Foundations

The Ron Paul Phenomenon Is Not Dead! Part 3 of 4

Like it or not the Ron Paul Phenomenon is not dead, nor should it be ignored. For one thing the phenomenon actually has less to do with Paul himself than it has to do with the growing discontent over the way Washington works. This discontent spans the political divide – as can be seen by the broad range of supporters Paul was able to attract. As one observer commented during the campaign, “Ron’s niche is huge … His niche you could drive a semi through.” (( “Ron Paul: Republican or Revolutionary?” ABCNews Report, October 18, 2007.))

Thus, the phenomenon has the potential to become the basis for a viable third party, particularly if other portions of the disaffected populace could be brought on board. Whether this eventuality materializes positively pales in significance when compared to our collective lack of understanding of the manner in which our personal ideologies and political choices are being shaped by a phony “war of ideas.”

This understanding must begin with an examination of the central role that tax exempt foundations and the money powers behind them have long played in the creation of both past and present political movements, now labeled “phenomenon.”

To begin this journey, we delve again into the questions of authorship and purpose of those “ancient history,”and highly controversial newsletters, otherwise known as The Ron Paul Political Reports. While Paul and his spokesman have given varying accounts over the years of just who wrote those newsletters, at least “a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul—all named the same man as Paul’s chief ghostwriter: Ludwig von Mises Institute founder Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr.” (( “Who Wrote Ron Paul’s Political Report? by Julian Sanchez and David Weigel, January 16, 2008, ReasonOnline.))

So, who is Lew Rockwell?

For starters, Rockwell was Paul’s congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982 and a vice president of Ron Paul & Associates – which was the publishing company for the infamous Ron Paul Political Report as well as The Ron Paul Investment Letter and the Ron Paul Survival Report. Rockwell “remains a friend and advisor to Paul – accompanying him to major media appearances; promoting his candidacy on the Blog; publishing his books; and peddling an array of the avuncular Texas congressman’s recent writings and audio recordings…” (( “Who Wrote Ron Paul’s Political Report? by Julian Sanchez and David Weigel, January 16, 2008, ReasonOnline.))

A number of writers have identified a 1980’s collaboration between Rockwell and Murray Rothbard as the key to those infamous Political Reports. The purpose of the collaboration was to build a coalition of populist “paleoconservatives” via Machiavellian style methodology. Theirs was a deliberate “politics of hate” strategy that was at its most extreme between 1989-1994, the same time period during which the most incendiary Paul newsletters appeared. The works and writings of both Rockwell and Rothbard during that time period mirrored the most controversial of the Paul newsletters. (( “Angry White Men,” by James Kirchick. January 8, 2008. The New Republic.)) Moreover, and as a result of those efforts, the 2008 Ron Paul Campaign was able to tap into the financial and networking resources of that coalition.

Those newsletters are only one of the ties that bind Rockwell, Rothbard and Paul together. The Ludwig Von Mises Institute is another, with Paul serving as a “distinguished scholar,” lecturer and frequent visitor. Rockwell is its founder and President.

According to its website, “The Ludwig von Mises Institute is the research and educational center of classical liberalism, libertarian political theory, and the Austrian School of economics. Working in the intellectual tradition of Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) and Murray Rothbard (1926-1995), with a vast array of publications, programs, and fellowships, the Mises Institute … seeks a radical shift in the intellectual climate as the foundation for a renewal of the free and prosperous commonwealth.” ((About at ))

The Mises Institute is a type of tax exempt foundation known as a think tank. Most but not all think tanks in the United States are tax exempt foundations, which as a group came about as a result of charitable foundations being granted tax exempt status by Congress in 1913. As of 2007, there were 5080 think tanks in the world, with 1776 in the United States. This represented a 91% increase since 1951 with more think tanks having been established since 1970 than in the previous 50 years. (( “The Think Tanks and Civil Society Program,” James G. McGann, Ph.D. Foreign Policy Research Institute. 2007.))

Examples of think tanks include The World Business Council on Sustainable Development, The American Eugenics Association, American Petroleum Institute, Accuracy in Media, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, The Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg, Southern Poverty Law Center, World Economic Forum, Rand Corporation, Progressive Policy Institute, Global Climate Coalition, as well as the Ludwig Von Mises Institute among thousands of others. (( “Think Tanks,” SourceWatch Encyclopedia.))

For the most part modern day think tanks owe their existence to tax exempt foundations, which had caught the attention of Congress over fifty years ago. In 1952, the Cox Committee was set up by Congress specifically for the purpose of investigating the political and economic impact of the largest of these foundations. When Cox died unexpectedly, the Reece Committee took up where the Cox Committee had left off. Norman Dodd was appointed Director of Research and Rene Wormser served as general council. Wormser subsequently wrote a book, now out of print, called Foundations: Their Power and Influence.

A scanned copy of the Dodd report submitted May 10, 1954 to Congress can be found on the internet, as can copies of both the Cox Committee and Reece Committee hearings. The conclusion of the Dodd report reads as follows: “It seems incredible that the Trustees of typically American fortune-created foundations should have permitted them to be used to finance ideas and practices incompatible with the fundamental concepts of our Constitution. Yet there seems to be evidence that this is so. I assume it is the purpose of this committee to gather and weigh the facts.” ((Norman Dodd Report to the Special Committee of the House of Representatives to Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations, submitted May 10, 1954.))

The Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford Foundations were the focus of both the Cox and the Reece Committees, and the committees together essentially documented the manner in which these foundations had been deliberately developing tools and strategies with which to influence and control education, government, the media and the country at large. Moreover, both committees found that the actions of these foundations were often the opposite of their stated purposes.

The work of the Cox and Reece committees led to a flurry of research into what became known as the left gatekeepers – the term used for the interlocked network of foundations which controlled the ideological “left.” One popular left gatekeeper chart archived on the internet identifies the Council on Foreign Relations, The Schumann and MacArthur Foundations, The Soros Foundation, The Trilateral Commission, and the Carlyle Group – together with the Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford Foundations and a number of smaller foundations – as part of the left gatekeeper structural network. The CIA is also identified as one of the most influential of these left gate keepers. ((Left

In 1961 Texas Congressman Wright Patman began another Congressional investigation into tax exempt foundations. Described as a “fierce populist,” his effort lasted a full eight years, culminating in 1969 with the first major regulatory controls over foundations (which perhaps not unpredictably have been watered down since then). His first report to Congress in December 1962 decried the fact that ownership of an increasing number of corporations was finding its way into tax exempt foundations. The resultant concentration of power and influence, Patman maintained, called for an “immediate moratorium on the granting of tax exemptions to foundations.”

His reasons included evidence which showed that foundations were not subjected to adequate or appropriate scrutiny by the IRS as well as the fact that many of the foundations under study had been found in violation of the law as well as Treasury regulations. Just as troubling was his discovery that some foundations were being used only to provide tax breaks for their principals and, further, that certain trustees were able to channel foundation money to themselves, their relatives and even their friends. Essentially and perhaps not surprisingly, Patman’s evidence showed that “foundation-controlled enterprises possess[ed] the money and competitive advantages to eliminate small business.”

In the forward to his 1962 report, Patman refers to the Ways and Means Committee hearings of 1948-49 which “revealed that educational institutions and private charitable foundations had moved into commercial and industrial fields. Some had inherited substantial business interests, as was the case of the Ford Foundation. Others had purchased control of businesses. A tax exempt cancer research organization, for example, had acquired a variety of industrial firms … In fact, the [1962] record lists about 40 different types of businesses controlled by educational and charitable organizations …” Incredibly,” continues Patman, “as far back as 1916, we were amply warned by the Walsh Committee of the abuses that might flow from the creation of those privileged, tax exempt entities…” ((Tax Exempt Foundations and Charitable Trusts: Their Impact on the Economy. Chairman’s Report to the Select Committee on Small Business. Wright Patman, Chairman, House of Representatives, 87th Congress. December 31, 1962.))

Drawing from Rene Wormser’s book Foundations and other sources, the author of a 1971 book titled The Money Manipulators provides additional, important insight into the way foundations work and the problem they present to the average citizen:

We must not overlook the interlocking directorship which exists within corporations and often extends into an invisible international government. Highly placed members of the Council on Foreign Relations occupy positions of prominence in many of our giant corporations and their influence extends beyond corporate corridors into the national, state and even local legislative bodies. Foundations are one of the most important power centers on our national scene. Their numbers have proliferated rapidly …

A recent [1971] Treasury Department study revealed that there are at least 100 major United States corporations in which foundations owned at least 20 per cent of the stock. It is the belief of this writer that many corporations pay dividends primarily for the benefit of this class of stockholder…

The most serious flaw in the structure of the foundation setup from the standpoint of the average citizen is the element of thought control which is exercised. Since the officials are generally men of wealth and position, they attract followers. This is true not only in business and industry but in the educational fields as well. A bright young student will usually identify favorably with the foundation which offers him a much needed fellowship or research grant. He will tend to develop attitudes sympathetic toward the objectives and thinking of foundation officials. This is the indirect method of thought control. The more direct one is the Fullbright or similar type scholarships which are generally awarded only to students who, when properly investigated, are found to be intellectually reliable…

The Reece Committee found that the foundations tended to develop a bureaucratic structure within and were usually managed by professionals. They also found “interlock” or cooperation among the powerful big-name funds… It is also difficult to live in a vacuum. Since the money power is so extensive, any opposing voice is usually either neutralized or bought off. If occasional cries of agonized individualism persist, the time-honored technique of smear and other propaganda devices are used to discredit them sufficiently so that their protestations are rendered valueless. ((The Money Manipulators by June Grem, Enterprise Publications, Inc. 1971. Chapter VIII.

As might be expected, the use of foundations to advance an Orwellian style agenda hidden behind lofty-sounding goals did not originate with Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford. In 1984 author-researcher Eustace Mullins penned a brief history of foundation influence in the United States, as follows:

We have read ad nauseam about men of great wealth who, after careers of astounding ruthlessness while amassing their fortunes, suddenly underwent a profound conversion, like [the Biblical] Paul, and became men of goodwill… From the outset, American foundations have exhibited a twofold image – in front is the tireless do-gooder who balks at nothing if it serves a good cause. Behind him are the evil conspirators who are intent on preserving and increasing their wealth and power.

The foundation in its present form, originated in the concept of a Boston family, the Peabodys. Henry James in his novel “The Bostonians”, ridiculed a family friend, Elizabeth Peabody, for her fifty years of relentless humanitarian zeal, portraying her as the legendary Miss Birdseye.

[Meanwhile] George Peabody, after slave trading operations in Washington and Baltimore, moved to London, where he was set up as a front by the Rothschild family. He amassed a fortune by buying up depressed stock in American panics, and chose a Boston trader, Junius Morgan, to carry on his business. In 1865, Peabody set up the first large-scale American foundation, the Peabody Educational Fund, endowing it with $1 million in government bonds. By 1867, this had grown to $2 million; by 1869, $3.6 million.

Ostensibly set up to educate Southern Negroes after the Civil War, it was a key operation in the carpetbagger strategy to gain control of Southern lands and to control their state governments. These states had to borrow heavily from Wall Street bankers to rebuild their services, and they remained deeply in debt for the next century. ((The World Order by Eustace Mullins. 1984.))

With respect to the Civil War, evidence clearly suggests that the Civil War itself was a carefully laid plan to usurp the monetary independence of the United States and create a financial empire centered on Wall Street from which the country as a whole would be governed from behind the scenes. Trial attorney and former law professor John Remington Graham summarizes the conclusions for the case he lays out as follows:

The divisive antagonisms between the North and the South, finally erupting in the spring of 1861, were not unfortunate historical accidents, nor the result of some inexorable momentum in events. Those antagonisms, rather, were deliberately agitated during the 1850s by great international banking houses with a preconceived motive of provoking secession. And secession was to be used as a pretext for a bloody war of conquest…

The war was planned to generate a stupendous national debt, mostly represented by bonds … the private interests acquiring these bonds successfully plotted to secure the passage of legislation which enabled them to convert them to the paper by them acquired in financing the war into a new and dominant system of banking and currency under their ownership and control. And those private interests fully succeeded in their sinister program, and set up a huge financial empire centered on Wall Street from which they have ever since governed the United States behind the scenes…

[Moreover], the great banking houses in Philadelphia, New York, London and Paris did not like [the Lincoln greenback, originally issued debt “free” by the Treasury] because they could not “control” it – in other words, they could not convert it into a profitable venture for themselves. ((Blood Money by John Remington Graham. Pelican Publishing 2006, p 15-16 & 48.))

Graham essentially lays out the case, in lawyerly fashion, that over the two or three decades leading up to the Civil War the international money powers were able to manipulate we the people and our government in such a way that radical voices on both sides of the manufactured divide became the only voices heard. Passions thus aroused created fertile ground for war.

Like Graham, general council for the Reece Committee Rene Wormser was not content to focus on the narrow issues prescribed by the media or the propagandists. Speaking of the post World War II period during which we faced the “communist threat” Wormser would bemoan the fact that “the emphasis on a search for organized Communist penetration of foundations absorbed much of the energy of the investigators [for the Reece Committee] and detracted somewhat from the efficacy of their general inquiry into subversion.” ((Foundations: Their Power and Influence, by Rene Wormser. 1958, p vii.))

In similar fashion to Graham, Wormser became far more concerned with the broader picture of a newly emerging American financial elite that could wield massive amounts of political clout through the size of its wallet and the strength of its own intricate, interlocked power structure. Neither the media nor the Congress paid attention to Wormser’s broader concern, and national attention remained directed at the so-called Communist threat until it was replaced by the Cold War. Antony Sutton and others tried to expose the “Communist threat” and the Cold War for what they were but no one listened to them either.

It is worth noting that tax exempt foundations were not the only tool employed by “money powers” because concomitant with them came the deliberate infiltration of grassroots groups and development of tools such as the “left/right” political spectrum as a means by which to control the “public debate.”

Thus, as Georgetown professor Carroll Quigley wrote in his 1966 Tragedy and Hope: “More than fifty years ago the Morgan firm decided to infiltrate the Left-wing political movements in the United States. This was relatively easy to do, since these groups were starved for funds and eager for a voice to reach the people.” ((Tragedy and Hope, by Carroll Quigley, 1966. ))

In 1913, and writing about the same time period as Quigley, Charles Lindberg Sr. wrote in his book, Banking and Currency and the Money Trust that “The [money] interests have done everything that has been possible for them to do in order to divide the people of this country into factions commonly known as political parties, because it was in their interest to do so… Partisanship is factional government and not national government … Partisanship has been the cause of retarding all social progress.” ((Banking and Currency and the Money Trust Charles Lindberg Sr. 1913, Private Reprint, p 95.))

In 1983, Antony Sutton would write in his book America’s Secret Establishments , “More effective than outright censorship is use of the left-right political spectrum to neutralize unwelcome facts and ideas or just condition citizens to think along certain lines.” ((America’s Secret Establishment by Antony Sutton, 1983.))

So it is that in the final analysis and despite the evidence uncovered by the Cox and Reece Committees about “left” gate keepers, it strains credulity to think that only the ideological left was – or is – controlled by “gate keepers.” As it turns out, Wormser was right: there was the broader concern of subversion that needed attending to.

  • Read Part 1 and 2.
  • Geraldine Perry is the co-author of The Two Faces of Money and author of Climate Change, Land Use and Monetary Policy: The New Trifecta. Read other articles by Geraldine, or visit Geraldine's website.

    13 comments on this article so far ...

    Comments RSS feed

    1. Ernie said on June 21st, 2009 at 6:28am #

      The Reece Committee called 11 witnesses. Ten (10) were hostile toward foundations and supported the premise which motivated the hearings in the first place.

      The Reece Committee’s public hearings were abruptly terminated after the first person testified in defense of the foundations. Rowan Gaither pointed out that “The Committee did not allow us to testify” and “has not even published the written statement we submitted under oath.”

      So was the Reece Committee a fair and impartial investigation arriving at carefully crafted findings or a partisan attack by persons who had an ax to grind and wanted to shape public debate within the context of the events occurring during their hearings?

      The August 20, 1954 Congressional Record includes a speech by Cong. B. Carroll Reece in which he explains how he became interested in the subject of tax exempt foundations. He starts by referring to 3 categories of information he discovered during his service on the Cox committee:

      “The first pointed to Communist or Communist sympathizer
      infiltration into the foundations; the second pointed to a much
      broader condition, namely, foundation support of Fabian socialism in
      America; and the third pointed to the financial aspect of the

      So, now, we begin to get an idea of what was bothering Reece
      and why he described foundations as “a major concern”. Reece then
      amplified his concerns about, and objections to, “Fabian socialism”
      and, suddenly, we discover something that Reece Committee supporters never reveal.

      Quoting from Reece’s speech:

      “Fabian socialism is not communism: it is a technique of nonviolent
      revolution by the consent of a duped propagandized population. It
      is the technique that brought socialism to Great Britain. In the
      United States, Fabian socialism has taken the name ‘New Deal’
      and ‘Fair Deal’. Of this there can be no doubt…Parenthetically, I
      want to say a brief word to those Americans who approve of the New
      Deal-Fair Deal-Fabian revolution, and therefore might call this
      investigation a tempest in a teapot. It is their privilege to do
      so, but it is my privilege to oppose this overt subversion of
      traditional American ideals…Although the Cox committee was not
      looking for Fabian socialism, the evidence presented before it
      disclosed to me what might be an important clue to the location of
      the nerve center of subversion in America–the left wing
      intellectuals whose prestige and influence seemed to be the product
      of the tax-exempt foundation grants. I therefore suggested to the
      Congress that the investigation be extended.”

      So, now, we can see what truly underlies the Reece Committee “investigation” and subsequent report conclusions.

      Contemporary news reports and editorials about the Reece Committee
      refer to it as an attack upon the Eisenhower Administration by
      disgruntled conservatives who were furious with Eisenhower because
      they had expected him to dismantle the FDR-New Deal and Truman-Fair
      Deal brick-by-brick and, thus, erase that entire era of Democratic
      activism and dominance from our country’s history.

      Reece’s comments above reveal how elastic his definition
      of “subversion” was. We also can see the political agenda he was
      pursuing. We also see his thinly-veiled contempt for intellectuals
      and their supposed association with “subversion” (a common theme in
      conspiracy arguments).

      Today, this all probably seems quite bizarre to most Americans
      because very few of us want to repeal Social Security, unemployment
      insurance, workmen’s compensation. or a host of other FDR-Truman programs and even fewer of us would accept the notion that such ideas or programs amount to “Fabian socialism” subverting our “traditional American ideals”.

      So one must have knowledge of historical context and human
      motivations before elevating Congressional “investigations” and
      resulting documents to the level of “factual” knowledge about
      controversial subject matters—or, at a minimum, before one assigns
      the appropriate value to such data.

      Reece was a career politician. For most of his 35-year political
      career he was a member of the minority party in Congress.

      And Reece watched, year-after-year while ideas, values, and policies
      that he rejected as “subversion” were nevertheless adopted and while
      the proponents of those ideas, values, and policies were elected, re-
      elected, and idolized by a “duped” American citizenry.

      Conspiracy theory is a problem-solving device. So…let’s pretend we could ask Congressman Reece some questions. Here is the Q & A on this topic:

      Question #1. What, Cong. Reece, is the perceived problem?
      Answer: Persons, policies, and programs are changing America.

      Question #2. What is wrong with that change?
      Answer: It violates “traditional American ideals”.

      Question #3. OK — so what? Every society (except those in the
      midst of civil war) has a prevailing point of view.
      Answer: Yes, but the “prevailing point of view” of the FDR and
      Truman years subverted “traditional American ideals.” If properly
      exposed, the prevailing point of view would be rejected.

      Question #4. So, whom is responsible for this “subversion”?
      Answer: Left-wing intellectuals and the media and tax-exempt

      Question #5. So, what can be done about it?
      Answer: We can expose leftists and foundations who are subverting
      our “traditional American ideals”.

      Question #6. So, what if Americans reject your expose?
      Answer: Then it must be the result of sinister, hidden forces that
      are preventing patriotic Americans (like me) from seeing the truth
      behind the matter.


      From this perspective, the Reece “conspiracy theory” can be seen as
      a problem-solving device to explain why his personal political
      preferences did not prevail in our nation’s debates about public
      policy choices.

      From the Reece perspective, he is absolutely certain that his
      personal political preferences represent “traditional American

      He is so certain about this, that the only way he can conceive of
      voters approving any “subversion” of those ideals is if they are
      a “duped propagandized population”.

      Incidentally, most conspiracy theories require a belief that the
      majority of Americans are dullards who have no capacity to
      understand what is in the best interests of themselves and their
      country—which is why they are so easily “duped” and manipulated by
      cunning, sinister “subversives”.

      Thus, the Reece conspiracy theory served to solve the perceived
      problem of why Americans adopted ideas and policies which Reece

    2. Bay Area Kid said on June 21st, 2009 at 7:48am #

      Bravo!!! This article is the most clearly written about the Real World Order. Every American must learn and be taught about the subversive power of the money changers and how they munipulate not only the US, but the world at large. If America wants to be free, then Americans need to listen to Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul and take action to take back the government and the education system from the corrupt power hungry banksters! Awesome article!!!

    3. Don Hawkins said on June 21st, 2009 at 8:44am #

      Focus people focus to go after climate change for real changes the course of human events. Oh and the supreme leaders know that.

    4. Michael Hureaux said on June 21st, 2009 at 10:21am #

      Notice how fast the Libertarians run to red baiting as soon as the actual historic record of their flawless market fetish gets brought up.
      The Libertarians can make up every conspiracy theory they want to to explain why their system has gone awry, but there’s no transparent political science in their reasoning. It’s always some secret cabal among a shadowy power elite that sent things teetering into the brink. If the right people run it, it will work out okay. They put me in mind of nothing so much as orthodox socialists, who assume the correct schematic will fix the flaws of socialism.

      The coming period will require creative thinking and action from people who recognize both the tyranny of the centralized state and the fetishized marketplace. Libertarians won’t make the cut.


    5. Max Shields said on June 21st, 2009 at 11:36am #

      Michael Hureaux “The coming period will require creative thinking and action from people who recognize both the tyranny of the centralized state and the fetishized marketplace.”

      nicely put

    6. Michael Dawson said on June 21st, 2009 at 12:00pm #

      Sasha Cohen’s Bruno has put Ron Paul to bed. Game over.

      The only good thing I have to say about Paul is that he’s probably depriving the KKK of thousands of members. Given the fascist immigration policy he proposes that might not be much of a net gain, though.

    7. Michael Kenny said on June 21st, 2009 at 12:59pm #

      Unlike the first two articles, this is not an article about Ron Paul, but about tax exempt foundations. Moreover the claim that the “evidence clearly suggests that the Civil War itself was a carefully laid plan …” strikes me as a “black helicopter”-style conspiracy theory which should not be taken seriously and, indeed, Ms Perry’s acceptance of it contradicts her views on Ron Paul inasmuch as she criticises him for precisely the same sort of conspiratorial analysis. Indeed, reviews of her book suggest that she is in fact herself one of the “black helicopter” screwballs, except that she believes that the helicopters are carrying bankers!

      In part 4, she will demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the CIA was behind the assassination of Julius Caesar!

    8. Douglas in Oakland said on June 21st, 2009 at 5:36pm #


      Sasha Cohen’s Bruno has put Ron Paul to bed. Game over.

      The only good thing I have to say about Paul is that he’s probably depriving the KKK of thousands of members. Given the fascist immigration policy he proposes that might not be much of a net gain, though.

      Michael Kenny said on June 21st, 2009 at 12:59pm #

      Sorry, Michael. The only immigration policy Ron Paul advocates is to follow the law. Ron Paul is not anti-immigration. Only anti illegal immigration. He believes that the desirable need for immigration should simply be reflected in a coherent immigration policy determined by a democratic consensus and in accordance with Constitutional provisions. The white supremacist slander is getting really old and has been debunked a million times.

    9. Don Hawkins said on June 21st, 2009 at 6:49pm #

      Look again at that dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every “superstar”, every “supreme leader”, every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there — on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
      Carl Sagan

      How long 10,000 years well the next twenty will not be boring trust me on this one.

    10. Michael Dawson said on June 22nd, 2009 at 10:13am #

      Doug in Oaktown, I’m not calling Paul a white supremacist, though I wouldn’t be surprised at all to learn he is one.

      What I am calling him is a hypocrite. He’s supposedly all about freedom and personal choice, yet he says moving to where the jobs are is not among the freedoms we possess. Worse, he wants to mount a military attack against immigrants.

      He’s also a gay-basher and a moron, as Sasha Cohen will show you.

    11. Jeff said on June 22nd, 2009 at 6:10pm #

      Look ‘right’, Look ‘left’. ‘Look’ everywhere. That is correct. LOOK! Concentrate. Sit back. Look at the world not as an American!

    12. Milton Buckwalter said on June 26th, 2009 at 6:01pm #

      Sasha Cohen? You’re quoting Sasha Cohen as a qualified authority? You’ve really got to be kidding. Or maybe you’re not. I’m so laffing out loud. Really? Really?

    13. Sean O'Neil said on July 21st, 2009 at 1:52pm #

      “Qualified authority”?

      Gosh, “Milton Buckwalter,” you don’t know how to assess things for yourself, so you need “qualified authorities” to tell you how the world works?

      Frankly, I’d take critical remarks from anyone — and then assess those remarks myself.

      When it comes to American politics and socio-economic thinking about life in America, I’ve heard more wisdom from George Carlin and Bill Hicks than I have from any “qualified authority” on the subjects.

      I’d have to say that “Milton Buckwalter” is neither qualified nor authoritative.