Ron Paul is the only one we can trust

So let me get this straight. Republicans, you are the party of life, for a small government, lower taxes and fiscal conservatism, yet you support the printing and borrowing of money for a trillion dollar interventionist foreign policy. You support giving billions of dollars in foreign welfare to Israel and even more to her enemies. You are a Christian, who values the Golden Rule, yet you support invading and occupying foreign lands against their will. You are pro-life and defend the rights of the unborn, yet you are also pro-war, consenting to the murder of innocent lives in another land. You are for individual freedom, yet you surrender your personal rights to the TSA or police checkpoints under the illusion of safety. You talk up freedom but would deny basic rights to groups of people because their lifestyle runs contrary to your religion.

Democrats, you are the party of peace, civil liberty, justice and equality for all. Yet you believe you are entitled to someone else’s property by supporting an authority that steals from one and gives to another. You are against corporate monopolies with special privileges, yet you support a large central government that has a monopoly of power, granting privileges to their select corporations. You are for strict regulations of industry, yet you are shocked and appalled when those chosen regulators are previous executives from corporations who grant exemption waivers for their cronies while targeting weaker, smaller business. You are for civil liberty, yet you are against economic liberty. You are anti-war, except when a Democrat is in office, when you support the murder of American citizens by drones without trial, the start of new wars, extension of the Patriot act, and the signing of the NDAA.

So many people have become apathetic after seeing politicians change their positions countless times in order to gain a few votes. They tell you exactly what you want to hear, only until they take the stage in front of a different audience, where their views become suddenly different. It is pathetic.

There is, however, one exception: Ron Paul. Ron Paul has been consistently saying the same thing for 30 years. He is honest. He has integrity. He predicted 9/11, the housing bubble and the economic collapse all well before they happened and was met with ridicule. Ron Paul will take the stage in front an audience of staunch neoconservatives and talk about how some U.S. policies led to 9/11, get loudly booed and continue to speak the truth anyway. That is the kind of president I want; someone who will tell me the truth, even if it isn’t popular.

Ron Paul isn’t the best speaker. He stumbles over his words from time to time. He talks too fast. He is old. He doesn’t look “presidential” (whatever that means). But he has a record of consistently voting the same way in Congress for 30 years. He is a strict constitutionalist and has never voted to raise taxes or for an unbalanced budget. He is the only Republican candidate who has a plan to cut the deficit significantly and balance the budget.

My favorite aspect of Ron Paul’s campaign is his foreign policy. He believes in non-intervention: Basically, that we should not be the policemen of the world and that we should generally mind our own business. If our defense is threatened, Ron Paul believes we should formally declare war and get it over with as quickly as possible. For this, he is called “anti-American,” “naïve,” and “anti-Semitic.” Yet our troops overwhelmingly support Ron Paul with their campaign donations. Even though Ron Paul raises much less money than the other candidates, he receives more than six times the donations from active duty military than the rest of the candidates combined.

You may disagree with some of Ron Paul’s views, and that’s fine. But what you can’t disagree with is the fact that he is a trustworthy person. We can truly believe he will do what he says he will do. Why? Because he has done so for 30 years.


Shawn Khalilian is a senior majoring in economics.


  • Joe Vaughan

    wow- awesome!!!

  • Mike

    you nailed it Shawn

  • 27Reasons

    THIS is journalism! Too bad major news networks don’t employ REAL journalists…..

    • Brad Erthal

      Believe me, commentators on news networks are plenty capable of creating straw man arguments as good or better than Mr. Khalilian’s. It’s better when they don’t. 

      • sd23

        Brad Erthal just doesn’t understand what’s going on

        • Brad Erthal

          Quickly, before you start educating me, can I borrow your tinfoil hat? I’ve misplaced mine. 

          • Verrater

            Hurr hurr. “I made a funny about a tin foil hat to draw focus away from what could be a logical argument, because having a debate is to hard. It’s much easier to make a childish remark in order to willfully discredit someone by associating them with an object that has preconceived negative connotations.”

            Grow the hell up.

          • lifeandliberty2012

            Brad is just another ….

          • Brad Erthal

            There’s an extra period in that ellipsis. Are you calling me fat? 

          • rkm1

            Don’t push Brad away, at least he is willing to discuss.

          • Brad Erthal

            You saw what I was responding to, right? Not a logical argument. And if you want a logical discussion of the original post, here goes: The author’s fundamental premise is that Ron Paul is the only sincere believer in Washington. I believe that that’s simply false. I am not an orthodox member of either party, although I align more with the Democrats than with the Republicans. But at least some of the politicians with whom I disagree have to sincerely believe what they’re saying, at least on some issues. 

          • rkm1

            Brad, I also believe that RP is not the only honest man in D.C., but he is without a doubt more honest than the other candidates. Gingrich is in search of a pedestal while Santorum and Romney are seeking power and glory. Ron Paul actually seeks to diminish the unbridled power of the presidency 
             (as well he should) and it’s executive orders that mimic the proclamations of a monarchy.

            What ever you do, don’t shut the hell up…

          • Brad Erthal

            I do give Paul points for sincerity, and I agree with him on a lot of things. I am not a total non-interventionist, and may be more of a hawk than him, but we need more champions of non-intervention and are way too far toward the end of the spectrum on war that Ike warned about. 

            I disagree with him on quite a lot, too (the gold standard idea is just dumb, for instance). But at least he is willing to stand by a position even when it costs him a vote here and there. A man from a conservative Texas district willing to decry military intervention and the war on drugs is a brave man indeed. 

          • rkm1

            It is true that Paul is a non-interventionist, but be assured that he is no pacifist. He is a constitutionalist who requires a formal declaration war by congress. The last declaration of war was WW2 (way before me). Paul wants to fight a declared war, finish it quickly and be done with it; no nation building and other costly, time-wasting endeavors.

            I wouldn’t write-off the gold standard too easily because it has been around longer than fiat money. And since paper money is what we use, we have to rely on banker named Bernanke to set the interest rate. This is hurting seniors who survive on CDs and savings.

            The bottom line here is that when we have these military interventions, buying friends with foreign aid and bailing companies that should have gone bankrupt, we can’t keep taxing the middle-class, so we keep raising our debt limit and pass the bill on to our children and so on. It has to stop somewhere and Ron Paul is willing to make that change.

          • RobertFallin

             Brad, do you really understand that fiat money is nothing more than a bank IOU?  “Legal Tender” laws force you to trade wealth for IOUs.  Well, guess who owes the IOU?  You do, under the “full faith and credit clause”.  The bankers risk nothing.
            “Money” is something of generally recognized “equal value” and the Constitution defines that as gold and silver.

          • Brad Erthal

            Where to begin? Paper money is only given the status of legal tender in the sense that the Federal government must accept it. You don’t have to. Money isn’t an IOU anyway. It’s a “Someone owes you”, which is why it’s useful. 

            I don’t even know where you got the “equal value” idea from, but gold doesn’t have constant value, or an equal value to all participants.

            The words “gold” and “silver” each appear once in the Constitution, in Section 10 of Article I. The heading is “Powers prohibited of States”. It reads: “No State shall… make anything but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts…” I omitted a lot of words, but it’s just a further list of other things states can’t do. 

            Now that all of your factual statements have been rebutted, I’m sure that you will make your argument more sophisticated and accurate, and never use these points again. I look forward to your refinements. 

          • RobertFallin

             Brad, obviously you haven’t read the Coinage Act of 1793 and if you try to use anything but FRNs as “legal tender,” you would be charged with counterfeiting.  It happened last year.
            So, you have proved yourself not only to be condescending, but ignorant, as well.

          • Brad Erthal

            Again, you’re wrong. While I had not read the Coinage Act of 1793, you apparently don’t understand it. 

            “Legal tender” refers to money good for transactions denominatedin dollars, and which may be used in this case for taxes. But you are allowed to accept whatever you want. You just aren’t allowed to hand me anything other than a $US as payment of $US which we have agreed to. 

          • RobertFallin

             Precisely my point, Brad. From a practical standpoint, I must  must utrade in FRNs, which are ONLY backed by “the full failth and credit of the United States”.  In other words, OUR wealth.  Before I accused you of being “ignorant,” now I say yhou are lying. a practi

          • Brad Erthal

            And of course I’m condescending. You’re batting .000 on facts, so I’m going to keep assuming that you need to have things put very plainly. 

          • CITIZEN9478

            Why is the gold standard dumb?

            The misconception most people have is that keysian economics are proven and established.   They aren’t.  Keysian economics have only been used for 100 years.  Thats barely an economic cycle. 

            And look at where it’s left us?  Every major nation using Keysian economics is on the verge of economic collapse – in a fashion never before seen in history.

            Here is the truth:
            First 150 years of our nation: 6% loss in the value of the dollar. Last 100 years of our nation(under the FED and keysian economic models): 97% loss in the value of the dollar.

            It’s not dumb.  It’s returning to the only economic system proven to work.

          • lifeandliberty2012

            Shut the hell up Brad. If we lend you our non-existent tin foil hat it will involve us shoving it so far down your throat that you choke on it.

            Quick, can we borrow your witty retorts and defense of yourself?

            We need some really good fallacious and idiotic defenses we can use in this discussion.

            Please share them with us now.

            1) can I borrow your tin foil hat
            We ask for a minimum of five such defenses so that we don’t have to put on our tin foil hats and fry our brains thinking of them.

            If others want to add to this list please message Brad since he can be your elected representative on this matter.

          • Joseph Brown

            You guys are Scientology-grade creepy. Where did you even come from? Do any of you go to school here?

          • Brad Erthal

            As far as internet threats go, shoving an imaginary tinfoil hat down my throat is pretty tame. I’ve had much worse said by faceless cowards online, and you can do so much better. 

  • josephle2k

    Since the beginning of the last century, many seeds of
    destruction have been planted that are now maturing into a systematic assault
    on our freedoms. With a horrendous financial and currency crisis both upon us
    and looming into the future as far as the eye can see, it has become quite
    apparent that the national debt is unsustainable, Liberty is threatened, and
    the people’s anger and fears are growing.


    Most importantly, it’s now clear that government promises
    and panaceas are worthless. Government has once again failed and the demand for
    change is growing louder by the day. Just witness the dramatic back-and-forth
    swings of the parties in power.


    The only thing that the promises of government did was to
    delude the people into a false sense of security. Complacency and mistrust
    generated a tremendous moral hazard, causing dangerous behavior by a large
    number of people. Self-reliance and individual responsibility were replaced by
    organized thugs who weaseled their way into achieving control over the process whereby
    the looted wealth of the country was distributed.


    The choice we now face: further steps toward
    authoritarianism or a renewed effort in promoting the cause of Liberty. There
    is no third option. This course must incorporate a modern and more sophisticated
    understanding of the magnificence of the market economy, especially the moral
    and practical urgency of monetary reform. The abysmal shortcomings of a
    government power that undermines the creative genius of free minds and private
    property must be fully understood.


    This conflict between government and Liberty, brought to
    a boiling point by the world’s biggest bankruptcy in history, has generated the
    angry protests that have spontaneously broken out around the country—and the
    world. The producers are rebelling and the recipients of largess are angry and


    The crisis demands an intellectual revolution.
    Fortunately, this revolution is under way, and if one earnestly looks for it,
    it can be found.


    Participation in it is open to everyone. Not only have
    our ideas of Liberty developed over centuries, they are currently being eagerly
    debated, and a modern, advanced understanding of the concept is on the


    The idea is not to provide a blueprint, what it offers
    here are thoughts on a series of controversial topics that tend to confuse
    people and even some called-journalists. It is interpreted in light of Dr.
    Paul’s experience and his thinking. He presents not the ultimate answers but
    rather guideposts for thinking seriously about these topics. The Doctor certainly
    does not expect every reader to agree with views, but in hope that it can
    inspire serious, fundamental, and independent-minded thinking and debate on these
    interrelated issues.


    Above all, the theme is Liberty. The goal is Liberty. The
    results of Liberty are all the things we Love, none of which can be finally
    provided by “Our servant” government. We must have the opportunity to provide
    them for ourselves as individuals, as families, as a society and as a country.


    “No nation can preserve
    its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” – James Madison

  • atayloravenger


  • Ravi Kumra

    Truer words were never spoken! Amen!!

  • sd23

    This is real journalism!

  • Kympa

    NWO will be defeated in the ballot boxes of America! 2012 they lose!

    • Terry Dhariwal

      Its NOT the ballot box – its the counting that needs to be FIXED (anyone see the irony?).

      All votes need to be counted in public. The GOP has NOT done this.

      What we need is a COLOR REVOLUTION for everyone to see the vote counts are Fraudulent. Everyone needs to where a Ron Paul T-Shirt – in ONE COLOR that stands out. How about orange?

  • Ben H

    Thumbs up from Australia.  If I could vote for him here I would!

  • Richard Fernandez

    How appropriate that a senior majoring in economics writes about and supports Ron Paul.

    • Kevin Charles Herbert

      Me Sydney Oz

    • Brad Erthal

      I don’t know of a single economist in favor of a return to the gold standard. 

      • goDrRP

        There lies the different between a follower and a leader.  Apple probably wouldn’t be here today if they didn’t believe a simple device can save the company.  Steve Job literally save the entire company with a MP3 player and subsequently made Apple so rich it can bail out Greece all by itself if it wants to (not that Apple would)
        There might not be answers for everything. But for some problems, there are clear logical paths. But are we will to accept this path.  Many question Paul’s economic policy because he is favor of a natural market recovery.  However, that could lead to massive bankruptcy, job loss and maybe even depression.  With this fear, we allow the government to take control of us, so we allow the government to bail out all the people that did not deserve to be bailed out.

        My point is that no one, not a single person is willing to suffer the consequence of our own actions (whether by buying a house that we know we can’t afford – but then EVERYONE ELSE is doing it so it must be OK or giving out loans to people knowing they can’t afford).  No sir, naturally, no one wants to suffer or take blame.  The fact remains, an action was committed, and we unnaturally suppressing the reaction. This very concept, however, defies nature, my friend.  And for sure It’s not a popular concept at this moment. So our government saw our fear and promised us just that: we don’t have to be suffered or be blamed to as long as we relinquish our liberty.  So endless money printing and borrowing from China to defense ourselves against…china.  Anyway, I digress.  In the end, our children and generations after us will suffer.

        And I quote Ron Paul, “Government is the reflection of people.”  I sincerely believe if you want the government to change, the people will have to change.  Ron Paul is a great role model, he says what he believes and he also PRACTICE it.  And he said the government cannot enforce morality.  Only people can (individually.)

        So why is so hard to vote for a real honest person instead of these other sorry politicians that will say anything, employ scare tactics to achieve their own and their puppet masters agenda?  Brad, I saw your replies and I truly believe you are a very intelligent man and a sincere person.  Best wish to you.

      • dontB evil

        Neither does Ron Paul you simpleton.

        Ron Paul is talking about introducing competitive currencies to the “Federal Dollar Note” because the FDN is backed by “nothing”.

        Competitive currencies which have some intrinsic value will be a save haven for those who want to keep their savings from becoming worthless through inflation. He is trying to do damage limitation for when the dollar collapses.

        Competitive currencies include physical Gold and Silver.

        Also – the WAR ON TERROR is funded not by Tax dollars – rather it is funded by monetizing the debt – the FED just “print” the money. The wars would end once you take away the power to create money from nothing away from the FED.

        • Jeb

          Allow me to redirect you to your fellow RP supporters post…

          “You know, when you post starts out with a personal/ad hominen attack, it diminshes the credibility of anything that follows your attack in your post.” -flyerfandan999

          • dontB evil

            The phrase simpleton was most appropriate since the comment was factually incorrect.

            But I guess your are morally right in calling me out.

        • Brad Erthal

          People can already trade in whatever they want. “Introducing competitive currencies” is nonsense. If you want to pay me in chickens, and I accept payment in chickens, black helicopters don’t come for us. 

          • dontB evil

            Dr Paul is drawing attention to the fact that the FDN is created out of thin air and then lent to our government at interest.

            In addition if the FDN was backed by some commodity – not necessarily gold or silver – then at least we could put a stop to the funding of the “War on Terror” and the devaluation of the FDN.

          • Brad Erthal

            So you think that back when money was commodity-backed, countries couldn’t finance wars? Huh? 

            And when we say that someone “debases” a currency, we are using the word that referred to the method of  devaluing gold and silver currency, by mixing it with baser metals. So the idea that only the current dollar note can be devalued is absurd. 

          • dontB evil

            Nations which monitized debt to fund wars inevitably became bankrupt – Germany being the last. Now America is on the same path.

            As for devaluing gold and silver through mixing it with other metals – that would be called FRAUD. So why isnt devaluation of the dollar classed as FRAUD? Maybe because its called “Quantitative easing” (translating to – we are robbing you and you dont even know it)

          • Brad Erthal

            If the government were printing its way out of debt, it would have to do that through inflation. And our creditors would immediately demand higher interest rates for new debt. Since core inflation is low, and the US still pays very low interest, if the Fed is trying to print us out of debt, they’re terrible at it.

          • dontB evil

            How is it nonsense – you speak without knowledge – it is against the law to pay for goods/services with gold and silver.

            The United States Coinage Act of 1965 states (in part):

            United States coins and currency (including Federal
            reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and
            national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes
            and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.As for the chickens – please be serious – we need to legalize alternative currencies in the USA to lessen the future pain to be suffered from when the dollar crashes.

          • Brad Erthal

            I’m not being facetious about chickens. You can pay someone with chickens if they are willing to be paid in chickens. And it’s legal to do so. There are a few exceptions to ways someone is allowed to pay or be paid. Sex is the only legal thing you are barred with using as payment, but obviously you can’t use illegal drugs, or murder contracts, etc. 

            But the government has to take your dollars when you use them to pay taxes, and it doesn’t  accept chickens. 

            Moreover, speaking of “intrinsic value”, don’t you think a chicken has that? Livestock has been used as currency. 

      • Jeb

        Brad, our politics may not always agree… but we certainly find common ground when it comes to the flood of RP supporters.

  • Joseph Brown

    All you need to know about Ron Paul:

    • Terry Dhariwal
      • Joseph Brown

        “Check Mate”… lmao. You’re trying to refute years of documented bigotry… with campaign propaganda. And like a lot of Paul supporters you just aren’t seeing the issue here. For decades his newsletters were filled with racism and homophobia. Why hasn’t he been able to give a reasonable and consistent explanation for this? Either he knew about it and let it happen, or he was totally irresponsible and genuinely clueless about what was being published under his own name for years, OR he wrote all that stuff himself. 

        • Terry Dhariwal

          Yes propaganda – a black man telling his story of how Ron Paul helped him.

          Oh one more thing – I’m going to write a racist newsletter with Ron Paul’s letter head and a scanned signature. You can add that to your list of racist evidence. 

          • Joseph Brown

            Yep. Propaganda. It’s a campaign ad. It’s designed to make you want to vote for Ron Paul with a heartwarming story and emotional music cues. And you pointed to it as hard evidence.

            And if you’re suggesting that Ron Paul might not have even known about the newsletters, try again. He made millions of dollars off of them.

          • Terry Dhariwal

            Yes it is hard evidence. Its an eye-witness’s testimony.

            What you state as “hard” evidence is hearsay – completely inadmissable in court unless you have 1st hand testimonies.

            By the way – ever heard of photo-shop?

          • Joseph Brown

            Generally you have the opportunity to cross examine an eyewitness. Not so when you only get to hear from them in a meticulously constructed, manipulative advertisement.

            Also, that’s not at all how the hearsay rule works, but it doesn’t even matter since I’m not using the statements to try to prove that Ron Paul is a racist. I’m just trying to show that there are only three possibilities: RP wrote the letters, he knew about them and did nothing, or he didn’t know. Each one reflects shamefully on him.

            And are you seriously suggesting that someone photoshopped all of these newsletters? It would be ridiculously easy for Ron Paul or one of his supporters to produce a real copy and have this whole thing over with. But it’s been months, and that hasn’t happened.

          • dontB evil

            I dont think Terry is suggesting that they were ALL photo-shopped but some may well be.

            And Ron Paul is fit to be president – because unlike the other puppets he can admit to his mistakes (i.e. not having oversight over letters while being a practicing OBGYN). Other reasons he should be president:

            1) He understands the concept of   “blowback”. This is a CIA term of un-intended consequences of INTERVENING in foriegn affairs.

            2) He predicted 9-11 type of events due to blow back

            3) He predicted the housing bubble

            4) He correctly understands the follies of Private Centralized Banks – which monetize debt (money creation)

            5) He has the most military donations than all the others (Democrats and GOP) put together

            6) He actually address complex issues instead of providing simplified rhetoric.

            7) He understands and points out that what we have at the moment is a CORPORATOCRACY not FREE MARKETS. This is a consequence of BIG Government being in bed with oligopolies and monopolies.

            8) He points out that both the GOP and the Democrats have eroded freedoms. Are you aware that the NDAA signed by Obama allows for your indefinite detention or even assassination – without any evidence?

            9) He wants to balance the budget and make real cuts to spending

            10) He understands that GOVERNMENT collusion with CORPORATES is leading to Fascism

            I could go on…

          • Joseph Brown

            Even if some of the letters were shopped the originals still would have emerged by now. And if RP can “admit to his mistakes” like you say then why hasn’t he owned up to the newsletters? I like some of the stuff he stands for, but that’s a dealbreaker for me.

          • dontB evil

            Isnt the fact that Obama signed the NDAA a deal breaker for you?

          • Joseph Brown

            What makes you think I support Obama?

          • dontB evil

            Who do you support?

            And do you think that signing the NDAA was a good thing?

          • flyerfandan999

            If you’re going to repeat the claim that “he made millions off of them,” then produce the evidence.  An offhand quote that is half speculation about how much was made over several years does NOT count as “evidence.”

            What would be evidence:  CPA-certified copies of Ron Paul & Associates profit and loss statements; or copies of RP&A’s federal and state corporate tax filings showing net profits.

          • Brad Erthal

            Nobody forged anything. He put his own name on that newsletter. Whether he read it or not, he was implicitly approving it. If he would say that it was wrong, and full-throatedly renounce the positions that used to appear under his name, I’d let it go completely. But he hasn’t. 

          • dontB evil

            Er.. he has said it was wrong and he has apologized already – so let it go Brad

          • Brad Erthal

            Not true. He has said that he doesn’t hold those positions and never has, and apologized if it appeared that he held them. He has not apologized for what was actually wrong, which is that he played dog whistle politics, and therefore legitimized the views of racists, in order to win votes from racists. It is naive in the extreme to see this as anything else. Even if by some chance he had no idea what his name was on, he should still be apologetic and reflective about how his carelessness clearly lent his good name to horribly demeaning stereotypes, and in a few instances, calls to violence against minorities. Genuine, clear apologies for what is actually wrong is what I’m asking for, not: “Oops. My campaign people made me do it.” 

          • dontB evil

            Nothing will please you Brad.

          • Brad Erthal

            Please. Five-year-olds can apologize for the things they have done wrong. So can serial killers. But I can’t expect it from Ron Paul? 

          • lifeandliberty2012

            Now you want to compare him to a five year old and serial killers because he won’t behave like you want.

            He is right to not do what you want him to do because doing so would be evil and if you can’t see that it is because you are evil.

            Do you wish to apologize to the millions of people you treat the way you do or are you a five year old who is incapable of telling those of us harmed by your  votes that you are sorry for what you have done. Even a serial killer can apologize and they kill less people than your votes kill.

          • Brad Erthal

            You think that it’s evil to apologize sincerely for racist comments made in your name? Now I think that we have all learned a thing or two about you that it is difficult to unlearn. 

        • David Reber

          “YEARS of documented bigotry” ?????  How about a handful of Newsletters out of the thousands published.  So I should blame this websites owner because of something idiotic that you post?

    • flyerfandan999

      It’s too bad that the article’s links to full-size copies of the cited doscuments are broken  (well at least on 3/27/12 when I tried to access them).

  • E G

     danggggggggggggggggggggggggg, told lol

  • SamGeoghegan

    Even if we entertain the idea that Paul wrote those newsletters, they are completely incongruous with the message, which technically speaking, isn’t even his, but those of the founders. That in itself makes the charge pretty negligible and utterly failworthy.
    Ask yourself a question, are you here to smear Paul or project some uber-progressive claim that the constitution was written to buttress centralised government? I believe the answer will pretty much sum up your dishonest camapaign.

    Nevertheless, Re-elect Obama, or vote Romney -it makes no difference.

    • Joseph Brown

      Haha, the founders. Good one. You do realize that several of the founders were actually proponents of a strong, centralized federal government, right? What makes you think Ron Paul knows, better than anyone, what is and isn’t constitutional?

      Btw, I’m neither an “uber-progressive” nor am I here to “smear” Paul. I just think the cult surrounding this guy is ridiculous, and most of you don’t even know who you’re supporting (which is one reason why the newsletters do matter).

      • LIPS

        we know very well who we are supporting. pay attention… 

        -Ron Paul Racist News Letters – Did he write them?(part 1)

        -Ghost Writer Of Ron Paul’s Racist News Letters EXPOSED! (part 2)

        now….if you want to know why we support ron paul…it’s because we are sick of banksters and the military industrial complex forcing their nwo agenda on us. you have a bunch of crooks and ron paul. it’s an easy choice.

        • Joseph Brown

          Those vids are clearly biased in favor of Paul, and they miss the point entirely. It doesn’t matter if he wrote the newsletters or not. They were published under his name for years, and he hasn’t been able to explain why he didn’t put a stop to it. So, why isn’t this problematic for you? Is it perhaps because it interferes with your dogmatic conception of Ron Paul as a saint, and of everyone else as “a bunch of crooks”?

          • David Reber

            WOW, you really have a hard time dealign with reality when it debunks your viewpoint.

          • flyerfandan999

            “They were published under his name for years, and he hasn’t been able to explain why he didn’t put a stop to it.”

            Can’t say for sure, but it sounds like you think that every page of every newsletter published over the course of 20+ years was dripping with racially-insensitive-for-2012 comments, passages, and articles.

            Nope.  ALL of the racially-insensitive-for-2012 passages have been extracted and published.  Compare the volume of that to the number of words published over 20+ years and you’ll see it’s a very very small portion.

            But you do raise a point, howcome Ron Paul did not stop the publication of these racially insensitive remarks?  Based on the fact that his public record over the years contains no racially insensitive remarks, and that his personal actions are not those of a racist person, and that his core philosophy does not see people other than individuals and not groups, the only reasonable conclusion is that he never saw them.  Given the racially-insensitive-for-2012 passages are such a small percentage of the overall material published and that it is acknowledged that these passsages were published when Ron Paul was back to being an insanely busy Dr. Paul, it’s not so far fetched an explanation.

      • SamGeoghegan

        The cult thing is completely irrelevant; every candidate and every cause has its acolytes- therefore it’s disingenuous and a red herring. The newsletters are alarming -I agree, but I don’t think he wrote them, based on reading various subject matter and coverage of his speeches etc. You wanna use them without further stating what you dislike about him?- then go ahead, but it’s hardly incontrovertable evidence.

        So which founders were proponents of centralised government, and where in The Constitution does it even point to this as its chief aim -Apart from ‘We the people’?

        As you can probably tell from my lack of Americani(s)ed English, I’m not an American, but I find it almost inconceivable that even in the event that you may disagree with some of Paul’s policies, you’re willing to throw out the baby with the bath water over some stubborn puritanical ideal.
        Even the progressive ‘great emancipator’, Obama borders on a neo-conservative sociopath, so I ask, do you honesty believe any candidate from either party is worth ceding to over Paul?  This seems completely disproportionate, to the point of denial.
        Seems illogical to me.

        • Joseph Brown

          Where did I say that centralized government was the “chief aim” of the Constitution? I was merely pointing out that the founders had a lot of different opinions about how the country should be run. I’m immediately suspicious when a politician claims to know the founders’ sole intent on this or that subject, because their message was far from univocal.

          Also, the cult thing is irrelevant? You people showed up out of nowhere, to a campus newspaper’s comments section, to upvote this story, give each other likes, and rant about bankers and the “new world order.” And you do this all over the internet. That’s *crazy*. Yes, all politicians have their followers, but Paul fans are a different breed. We (meaning UA students) might have used this space to have a discussion, but you people showed up overnight and launched a full Ron Paul offensive. It’s borderline insane behavior. That’s why you seem like a cult to a lot of people.

          • SamGeoghegan

            They’re enthusiastic and some may be over-zealous, but so what- they’re not representative of the entire group- and they’re harmless.

            You’re having a conversation with me aren’t you? – and I don’t appear to be writing all my sentences in upper case or pronouncing ‘End the Fed’.

            Even if you think there’s a degree of scope for interpreting the constitution, it is without question that your federal government is in serious breach of it and requires immediate restraint -I only see one man addressing this, plus he’s the only candidate in either party morally objecting to the wars -Wha? and you want to discuss your annoyance with Paulites and create bad publicity?

            Like I said, you don’t have to agree with everything he says-and I know there are some giants, but he has a monopoly on the sacrosanct issues of the left. Non-intervention, civil liberties, anti-bail outs, separaton of church and state, etc.
            But if you want to wallow in pet annoyances-it’s up to you.

          • David Reber

            People who know the truth sometimes can seem overbearing when trying to enlightened those who are still deceived.

            I’m not following your logic here Joe.  Yes you are correct that there were federalists who preferred a large central government–people like Alexander Hamilton.  It is also no surprise that those individuals also preferred large central banking.  Thankfully the Jeffersons and Madisons of the day outnumber these viewpoints.  The US Constitution is now the law of the land, having been ratified by the states, so it is immaterial to even consider anything else.

    • Brad Erthal

      Wait, are you claiming that none of the founders were racists?

  • rkm1

    You cannot get any clearer than that.
    If you compress it into a sentence, it will be a mantra!

  • INTJ1357

    Nice and informative article! Thank you.

  • DalenCheryl Kaskey

    Finally, an article with some common sense written in it.  Every other candidate is promising to do things that are not possible given are current economic state. If everyone thinks the government is best when they are gaining something from the government, it won’t last too long. And that is exactly where we are today.
       When we bailed out GM and Chrysler we also bailed out a lot of banks. The whole works should have gone through bankruptcy.  We have the federal government trying to decide who is going to be winners and losers instead of each entity being able to stand on its own.
      We are now $15.5 trillion in debt and rising at an alarming rate. Now we should be cutting federal expenses but instead we continue spending like the coffers are full. And soon we will be locked into a health care system that will put the final nails in the coffin.
      Where is the fiscal responsibility?  We have had nothing but irresonsiblity for 12 years. I say it is time for someone like Ron Paul. He recognizes the problem and has a solution to fix it or at least get us headed back in the right direction.

  • Jimmy Daher

    An extremely well written and well thought out piece of journalism.  Well done, Mr. Khalilian.  Dr. Paul is taking the majority of delegates in Iowa, Maine, Nevada, Alaska, Colorado and Missouri.  You won’t hear much about it in the main stream media, but he is actually in a strong second place right now!  Despite the media’s blatant attempts to blackout his message of fiscal responsibility, liberty and peace, Dr. Paul’s message is changing the world!  Keep up the good work!

  • Jeb

    “Ron Paul has been consistently saying the same thing for 30 years.”

    You can consistently be wrong for 30 years. I’m not going to get into a big long discussion over all of his views because to be honest, I agree with many of them. The fact is though, that he holds some “fringe” views that the mainstream of the country does not agree with. Like it or not, this is a fact. Maybe things will change in the future, but he will not be the president in 2012. For now, he is seen as the Republican equivalent or Dennis Kucinich; UFOs and all.

    As a side note, I just love how the moment Ron Paul’s name is mentioned the CW sees an influx of new commenters. I swear the Paul campaign must have a fairly sophisticated web-scouring tool and devoted web following to always generate this kind of response and yet still be so unpopular in elections.

    • kevin sereni

      I find articles like this from people posting them to Face Book and also by searching “Ron Paul” on google news. I’m sure articles that include Santorum’s name receive many comments from Santorum supporters as well.

      • Matthew Bailey

        They don’t. The CW has had articles talking about Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich and didn’t get anywhere near the amount of comments that have already popped up here.

        • phylax

          That’s because Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich are business as usual and indistinguishable from George Bush and Barack Obama. Boring and irrelevant.

        • flyerfandan999

          Enthusiasm, a sense of duty, and the desire for the truth seem to be characteristics shared by many RP supporters.

          • Matthew Bailey

            I guess that’s another way of describing spamming every post and poll that Ron Paul is in.

          • flyerfandan999

            One man’s spamming is another man’s “lively debate.”  ;-)

          • Matthew Bailey

            I would say that over 100 comments with only about 4 people going against Paul is unnecessary spamming.

          • lifeandliberty2012

            Dear Matthew Dickhead Bailey,

            Believe whatever the hell you want since that is what you are going to do anyways.
            Instead of trying to discuss this with us you can just call us spammers and we can call you a f-ing a-hole which is exactly what you are.


            A Pissed off Spammer

          • Matthew Bailey
          • lifeandliberty2012

            What are you doing here then? Care to explain that? We are not spamming and you can go to hell Matthew Bailey. There is something called freedom of speech and the right to speak our minds on topics we care about. If you do not like it then you can f-ing try to control another conversation because we are free to do whatever the hell we want and there is nothing that a pathetic loser such as yourself can do about it.

          • Matthew Bailey

            Instead of replying to my arguments, you respond with anger. U mad.

  • Adam Morgan


  • 2012RonPaul

    Yep! That’s why it’s Ron Paul or NONE at all!

  • terry_and_bonnie

    Bravo. I agree 100%

  • Inner

    What is this Crimson White? A group of white supremacists, no doubt! I bet they’re getting some of that Ron Paul nepotism money

  • Matthew Bailey

    Ron Paul is a nutjob who believes in the homeopathy of economics and one of his big plans to fix America is to get rid of the fed which would actually lead to a global crisis. Many of his solutions, aren’t solutions at all. The man claims to be a Constitutionalist, but really he’s just an anti-federalist. His rejection of the incorporation of the 14th Amendment shows that he’s willing to reject original meanings of part of the constitution for his own stupid political beliefs. If Ron Paul had his way with how the federal government would interpret the constitution then anti-sodomy laws would be legal, creationism could be taught in schools, and the civil rights act would be illegal. The man is a nut. Not to mention the fact that he’s refused to say who wrote the extremely racist newsletters because it might be a person he’s still close with. He’s a hypocrite too since he rails against government spending and campaign financing and is known as “Dr. No” but still rakes in Millions for his district and bankrolls his family through Congressional jobs and campaign finances. 

    • David Reber

      Wow, if I had a penny for everytime this was cut&paste I’d be a rich man.  You are so uninformed it is sad.  Your last “point” is idiotic.  You obviously have no concept of how bills are appropriated ands passed in the House.

      • Matthew Bailey

        Seeing as how I just wrote this you’d be a very poor man. As for your second claim, I’m quite aware of how bills are written and money is appropriated in Congress. I just think it’s a little bit hypocritical for a man to be pushing for cutting the federal budget when he’s putting in for millions for his district. Just because he’s voting no on the bill doesn’t mean he’s not whoring himself out for federal money.

        • David Reber

          What?  Whoring himself out would be to vote YES.  So you are saying that he should not earmark one penny and turn over that money to the executive branch so they can spend it without any oversight?  He has a duty to his constituents and a failure to earmark would be a grave injustice.  Why is this so hard for you to understand?  Do you call someone who purchases put options on his investments a hypocrites as well? 

          • Matthew Bailey

            turn over that money to the executive branch so they can spend it without any oversight?
            Lie. There’s a great deal of oversight in the executive branch since their budgets are posted and it you really wanted to you could research more. 

            I just think that it’s hypocritical of him to claim that he’s above these spend happy politicians when he’s putting earmarks in the bills that he KNOWS will pass. How is that different than voting for the bill when his ideological statement does nothing to affect the passage of the bill except now it’s got Ron Paul pork in it. This is a man who thinks that people in areas that get tornadoes shouldn’t get any help from the federal government and yet is fine with packing his district with money from the feds for whatever stupid project he’s gotten pork for. He knows his no votes won’t do anything and instead of trying to work harder to persuade other Congressmen with moderate bills he’s a person who proposes horrible bills such as the We the People Act and gets very little done except more pork for his district.

          • David Reber

            Ok so for any other politician whom you support this would be considered “covering your bases” but since it is Ron Paul he is a hypocrite.  You know if you spent 1/10th the time actually listening to Dr. Paul instead of the corporate owned media you’d be doing yourself a favor.

            You start out your post by saying he is a nutjob.  That’s a pretty ignorant statement considering he is a medical doctor and scholar of free market economics.  Nothing Ron Paul does is in secret or behind closed doors.  He has almost singlehandedly fought the insidious federal reserve system and exposed them for who they are–a privatelty owned cartel which operates for the benefit of the moneyed interests.

            It is sad when the one decent, honest, politician who stands for you and your individual freedoms is the one you call a nutjob.

          • Matthew Bailey

            >any other politician
            Note: every other politician doesn’t claim to be fighting pork and try to get the moral high ground on spending the way Paul does.

            > You know if you spent 1/10th the time actually listening to Dr. Paul instead of the corporate owned media you’d be doing yourself a favor.

            I don’t watch the news. I’ve probably heard as many Paul speeches as I have Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich. I’m well informed on the politicians and their views. Nice of you to pull out the accusation based on nothing though. I’m sure after saying all that you probably still think I’m a sheep though.

            > That’s a pretty ignorant statement considering he is a medical doctor and scholar of free market economics.

            A medical doctor who doesn’t believe in evolution and Global warming. Idiots can become doctors too. Also, I love how you call him a scholar of free market economics even though he doesn’t have a degree and every time he gets up against a real economist they completely destroy his idiotic views on the economy. Austrian Economics is the homeopathy of economics.

            >Nothing Ron Paul does is in secret or behind closed doors.

            Except for him saying who wrote the extremely bigoted Newsletters that he made a small fortune on.

            >He has almost singlehandedly fought the insidious federal reserve system and exposed them for who they are

            The complaint that you have regarding them being privately owned is a concern is concerned with the board for each governor, but the head of the Fed and the Governors are appointed
            by the Federal Government. The Fed should probably be reformed to get rid some of the private influence, but overall the organization is not “insidious.” Paul’s solutions of getting rid of the Fed and having competing currencies would cause the world market to collapse and any confidence that foreign countries had on the US would be destroyed.

            Ron Paul only “stands for individual freedoms” on the federal level and even that’s iffy. The We the People act would have stripped the SCOTUS ability to hear cases relating to religion, abortion, and same sex marriage. Ron Paul also supports DOMA which prohibits gays from getting the over 1000 benefits to marriage in states where gay marriage is allowed. Though he might think that anti-sodomy laws are dumb he thinks that states should be free to enact them meaning if Ron Paul had his way several of my friends would be in jail right now for sodomy between consenting adults, or some of my friends would be allowed to be kept out of businesses because of the color of their skin. If that’s your idea of freedom you can have it.

          • flyerfandan999

            Rep. Paul’s positions on the “rights” that you have described are logical positions to take when viewed in light of the 9th and 10th amendments, which are the “original meaning” the founders intended and which are still, IMO, what we as a nation should be striving for.

            I don’t agree with your characterization that Rep. Paul is an anti-federalist, not that there is anything wrong with being A-F.  It’s just that the fact that our current federal government has grown to the behemoth that it is today makes any attempt to chop it back down to size looks like an A-F crusade.

          • Matthew Bailey

            You are aware that the Constitution can be amended and we have to take that change into account? The 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution to incorporate the protections that are found in the first 8 Amendments to the state and local level. Ron Paul is rejecting this fact for his own political ideology. The fact is that the 10th Amendment is “but a truism” that provides no extra powers to the states. The 9th Amendment is part of the sphere of privacy, which Ron Paul rejects. Ron Paul rejects the Constitution moving forward with the nation, which even Thomas Jefferson supported. Paul doesn’t believe in the Constitution, he believes in an ideology of Anti-federalism.

            The man is not a libertarian because he believes that the state and local governments have the right to regulate private behavior. He just opposes the federal government in almost every way, which makes him an Anti-Federalist.

          • flyerfandan999

            Likewise you have to be aware of the fact that the Constitution is a political document and that the 14th amendment was passed under a much different set of circumstances than were say the first 10.

            I diagree with your characterization that he “opposes the federal government in almost every way.”  RP is always talking about the role of govt in general and about the powers of each branch as specified in the C.  In fact from the perspective of today, with the trend being the usurpation of governance from the local and state to the national, RP is one of the few believable voices calling for that to reversed.  Again, my point (which you obviously don’ agree with) is that rolling back the behemoth we have to day looks like A-F but it isn’t because we’ve strayed waaaaay past federalism to almost national govt.

          • Matthew Bailey

            Incorporation of the Bill of Rights is a fact. His rejection of that shows a willingness to reject ideas that he disagrees with for political purposes rather than actually following the constitution.

          • flyerfandan999

            “Except for him saying who wrote the extremely bigoted Newsletters that he made a small fortune on.”

            OK, if you want to play the newsletter card, you must refute the investigative reporting done here that shows Rep. Paul was not the author of the handful of racially-insensitive-today-in-2012 excerpts (a very small percentage of what was published over the span of 20+ years), AND you have to produce documentation such as copies of the IRS Forms 1120 that the company Ron Paul & Associates would have filed with the IRS, or the RP&A profit and loss statements, to ascertain how much money was actually made by the newsletters.

          • Matthew Bailey

            This is what I don’t understand is so difficult. If Ron Paul is a trustworthy guy, which my friends who interned in DC say he was, then he shouldn’t have a problem saying who wrote the articles. They’re clearly very racist and bigoted yet he’s refused to say who it is. It makes no sense. I don’t have to dispute anything that you’ve posted. Ron Paul is specifically avoiding answering questions related to this issue. There’s no reason for him to be so secretive about this.

          • dontB evil

            “A medical doctor who doesn’t believe in evolution and Global warming.”

            Mitt Romney doesn’t believe in the evolution.
            Santorum doesn’t believe in evolution.
            Obama doesn’t believe in evolution.
            Not sure about the Grinch.

            So I guess they are all NUT-JOBS

            And by the way the evolution theory is still being developed and refined. I myself believe in the concept – but I wouldnt call anyone a nut-job if they dont subscribe to the same believe systems.

            As for global warming – please give me a break. I’m sure you know of the Climategate scandal- where corrupt scientists colluded with corrupt organizations such as the IPCC to “hide the decline” – that is to say they couldn’t account for the global decline in temperatures. That is why it is no longer referred to as “Global warming” rather it is now “Climate Change”. LMAO

            BTW there IS A LINK between global warming and Carbon dioxide – but its not what you think

            –> CO2 emmisions increase AS A RESULT of Global warming.

            –> Increases in CO2 is an effect of global warming – it is not a cause.

          • Matthew Bailey

            Evolution is at this point in time a scientific fact. Rejecting it is a rejection of the scientific method and  the way that we gain knowledge. Also, Obama does believe in evolution. Nice try though. The climategate scandal actually didn’t do anything to take away from the main points that those articles found. There’s an overwhelming amount of evidence that man made global warming exists. Once again, rejection of that evidence is a rejection of science.

          • dontB evil

            What overwhelming amount of evidence shows that CO2 is causing the planet to warm up?

            CO2 increases as a RESULT of global warming. This is elementary science.

          • Matthew Bailey
          • David Bailey

            Yo just an FYI, Ron Paul is considered by many economist to be a monetary genius. He predicted the subprime crisis and has also predicted the coming (but smaller) student debt crisis. He has been endorsed by Jim Rogers, Peter Thiel, Niall Ferguson, Nassim Taleb, Bill Gross, Jim Grant, and many more. These men are held in the highest esteem on the street and each predicted the subprime crisis due to their understanding of austrian economics and a fiat currency ruled by an out of control central bank. Ron Paul has published over 9 books on monetary policy and has chaired several economic committees since his time in congress. I have been personally investing for over 8 years, worked at a hedgefund on 2nd, and have managed two smaller sized funds, and I can promise you that Ron Paul’s economic beliefs are not “crazy”. AT BEST, as Bernanke and Greenspan do, you can chalk it up to a difference of philosophy. I suggest you visit the Mises Institutes website, read Ayn Rand, Fredrick Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and educate yourself on the Austrian School of economics before critiquing an economic model you obviously don’t understand- if you did, you wouldn’t so casual dismiss it. Look where fiat money has gotten us.. Indefinite war, massive bankruptcy, 20% real unemployment, a dying middle class, $4.00 gas, and an economy that is on the brink of collapse. It’s time to face reality..

          • Matthew Bailey

            >Ron Paul is considered by many economist to be a monetary genius. 

            Yeah, Austrians.

            >He predicted the subprime crisis and has also predicted the coming (but smaller) student debt crisis.

            I think you’ll find that actual economists did predict the subprime crisis as well, including Krugman. A broken clock is right twice a day.

            >Ron Paul has published over 9 books on monetary policy and has chaired several economic committees since his time in congress.

            Yet every time he goes up against a real economist in the committees they have to explain simple concepts of economics to him like he’s a child. He’s also supported the gold standard in some form, which would destroy the world market.

            > I suggest you visit the Mises Institutes website

            An austrian think tank that’s been criticized for its neo-confederate ideology before. I’ve found it’s closer to a philosophical think thank to an actual economic think tank. I prefer to stay away from organizations established by the racist Lew Rockwell.

            >read Ayn Rand

            Horrible writer and created a horrible political ideology.

            >Fredrick Hayek, Murray Rothbard

            I have read both of them. I actually own a copy of “The Road to Serfdom” as well.

            >if you did, you wouldn’t so casual dismiss it. 

            I have and I still do. It’s an “economic” theory that has almost no math to back it up. It overlooks models which might contradict it’s inherent ideology and seems to reject empiricism. Methodological individualism is not a foundation for a scientific analysis of anything.

            >Look where fiat money has gotten us

            All of which actually have political and global issues that are the cause of them. It’s bullshit for you to claim they’re due to fiat money. Also, our economy isn’t on the brink of collapse any more than any other country that got hit by the recession.

          • David Bailey

            reading Hayek without becoming an Austrian is like reading Darwin but believing in Adam & Eve. I’m sorry but your criticisms of the gold standard are just not true, and certainly not as crazy as you act. None of the individuals I listed wear tin foil hats but I noticed you didn’t mention their RP endorsements in your reply.

          • Matthew Bailey

            >Reading Hayek without becoming an Austrian is like reading Darwin but believing in Adam & Eve.

            There are plenty of people who do that, but that’s not your point. It could be that I found the writings to not be as convincing? Nah, I just must be a nut. Sorry, I tend to support economists who actually use math and scientific methods to arrive at their analysis instead of Methodological individualism.

            >I’m sorry but your criticisms of the gold standard are just not true

            How about there not being enough gold for us to completely back up our money? Maybe the monetary inflexibility makes me reject the idea? Maybe the fact that most economists believe that the lack of monetary flexibility was a huge part of the reason we got into the Great Depression? It might also be that now we’d be tied to the gold supply found across the earth instead of being able to respond to economic crisis. The gold standard would be a disaster for America unless you think that deflation is a good thing, which I hope you don’t.

            >None of the individuals I listed wear tin foil hats but I noticed you didn’t mention their RP endorsements in your reply.

            I don’t feel the need to compare endorsements when you can look at the people who’ve endorsed Obama or Romney and come up with a larger list that doesn’t include Austrians. It’s an argument from authority.

          • lifeandliberty2012

            Summary: I can vote therefore I know so much. I tend to…. I believe… I know…. I am right about… I don’t listen to anyone who does not agree with me…. I find things that I don’t agree with unconvincing…. I am a know it all…. Please esteem me as highly as I esteem myself…

          • Matthew Bailey
          • lifeandliberty2012

            Summary of your long-winded rant: I am a know it all and right therefore the simple minded child Ron Paul needs to be educated by those who agree with me. Look at how wise, intelligent and perfect I am. Why don’t you vote for me when I, Matthew Bailey, run for God of the universe.

            F-k you Matthew Bailey.

          • Brad Erthal

            Obviously you’re slightly hyperbolic, but comparing both his writing skills and knowledge of the topic to yours, I think that it’s fairly clear that Mr. Bailey is substantially better informed and more sophisticated on this than you are. So while we can’t make Ron Paul take an introductory macroeconomics class, it would be advisable that you spend some time studying the issue. 

          • Matthew Bailey

            I was thinking about running for philosopher king. I didn’t realize that God of the universe was a position that was open.

          • phylax

            Surely your seven friends did not wait for the Lawrence v. Texas decision before engaging in sodomy. 

            Civil marriage was devised as a way for the state to assign responsibility for offspring to the procreative couple.  It was not designed to benefit the couple.  People have complete freedom to live with, have sex with, share their lives and property with anyone they choose; they do not have to apply to the state for a license to do so.

          • phylax

            Please post the “exremely bigoted” quotes from a Ron Paul newsletter.  People should decide for themselves if they are indeed, extreme and bigoted.

          • Matthew Bailey

            Here’s a small percentage of them.

            “Order was only restored in LA when it came time for the blacks to collect their welfare checks. The ‘poor’ lined up at the Post Office to get their handouts (since there were no deliveries) — and then complained about slow service.” -Report on LA riots, June 1992
             “I’ve been told not to talk, but these stooges don’t scare me. Threats or no threats, I’ve laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.)” -Direct mail ad promoting Paul’s newsletters, written from Paul’s perspective, 1993

            “It is human nature that like attracts likes. But whites are not allowed to express this same human impulse. Except in a de facto sense, there can be no white schools, white clubs, or white neighborhoods. The political system demands white integration, while allowing black segregation.” -‘The Disappearing White Majority,’ January 1993

            “I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any wonder the AIDS epidemic started after they ‘came out of the closet,’ and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy?” -June 1990

            “[Martin Luther King, Jr.], the FBI files reveal, was not only a world-class adulterer, he also seduced underage girls and boys…And we are supposed to honor this ‘Christian minister’ and lying socialist satyr with a holiday that puts him on par with George Washington?” -December 1990

          • phylax

            Paul has said that he didn’t write the newsletters but even if he passed on them, the statements seem rather ordinary to me and pretty typical of what a great many white people really think. I think whites are getting sick of being castigated for their preference to live and socialize among people like themselves. Do you really blame the white people of Detroit for abandoning that once beautiful city? White flight shows you what people really think – there are far more people who vote with their feet than those who stay put just to prove that they are not racists.

          • Matthew Bailey

            Do you really blame the white people of Detroit for abandoning that once beautiful city?
            Yes! White people are to blame for the overwhelming majority of the country’s problems.

          • phylax

            White people are also “to blame” for the creation and maintenance of this country including cities like Detroit. We are to blame for its constitution, its government, its justice system, schools, hospitals, industry, and agriculture.

          • Matthew Bailey

            And mostof that stuff is racist.

          • phylax

            Of course it’s “racist”; the country belongs to the race of people who created the culture. The Black people of Africa created a very different culture and they are essentially ‘fish out of water’ in a foreign culture, just as they would be if plopped down in Japan or Tibet.

          • phylax

            Earmarks are not “pork”.  It is the one chance congressmen have to say how tax monies will be spent that have been extracted from their constitutents under threat of penalty. 

            Dr. Paul is against those taxes, but until the IRS is dismantled he must do his best to mitigate the loss to those whose money has been stolen.

          • lifeandliberty2012

            You are responding to a retarded f-er so you aren’t going to get far trying to explain such simple concepts to him.

          • Matthew Bailey

            The ableism is not appreciated.

          • Brad Erthal

            Earmarks aren’t “pork”? That’s literally the only thing “pork barrel spending” originally referred to. 

          • phylax

            The money has been extorted from the people by force of law and the federal government then decides how it is spent – the people have no say. Their money can be sent by the billions to Israel or Egypt, sent to pay for the world’s largest embassy in Baghdad, to fund Planned Parenthood, and the war on drugs, but when a congressman tries to retrieve some of their money to pay for local projects they are castigated for supporting pork!? You and I have a different view of the pig.

          • Brad Erthal

            You may not like the common usage of the word, but when you rail against pork, you are specifically, and only referring to projects spent in one’s district. And the idea that the taxes and the spending aren’t related is absurd. Money that isn’t spent on pork does not just go over to the executive branch to do with it as they will. It’s an additional appropriation (in most cases at least) and therefore gets borrowed. Ron Paul’s pork gets borrowed against your children’s and grandchildren’s taxes just like everybody else’s. 

          • phylax

            In whose district is the world’s most expensive embassy located? Is the State of Israel considered part of some districts in New York or Florida? Do the taxpayers get some return on the millions of dollars the federal government gives to Planned Parenthood? How about the bank bailouts – which congressmen consider Goldman Sachs their worthy constituents and since when are European banks in anyone’s district?

            Ron Paul’s largest earmark $6M was to fund a national reading program for elementary and secondary schools. Only two items involved lobbying and both benefited his home district – one was for water, wastewater, and infrastructure improvement in Baytown, TX. Different pork. Different pigs.

          • Brad Erthal

            You’re pretty good at cognitive dissonance. All pork is pretty small compared to military spending. That’s obviously true. And I also think it’s crazy. I even think that quite a bit of pork is not bad spending. But “pork” = “earmarks” = spending in the congressperson’s district. 

    • flyerfandan999

      “Ron Paul is a nutjob…”

      You know, when you post starts out with a personal/ad hominen attack, it diminshes the credibility of anything that follows your attack in your post.

      • Matthew Bailey

        I call it like I see it.

        • lifeandliberty2012

          We call it like we see it too rat turd

          • Matthew Bailey

            Your jimmies, they appear to be rustled.

    • phylax

      If Ron Paul were really a “nutjob” of no consequence he wouldn’t be treated like a mortal threat to the status quo.

      • Matthew Bailey

        He’s not. He’s just a candidate that manages to get a lot of his small group of supporters to send him money. These supporters then spam every message board and poll on the internet to get more supporters, but really they only manage to piss people off. He’s milking you guys for a much money as possible despite the fact that he has no chance at winning the Presidency.

        • lifeandliberty2012

          We piss people off? Well you people piss us off so shut the hell up. I am so glad that we piss people like you off since every day you and those who love you piss us off.

          • Matthew Bailey

            From a utilitarian standpoint, I piss off less people so I’m a better person.

  • shawnmcarter

    Ron Paul suffers the sin as BHO, idealism.  There is a place in politics for pragmatism and neither of these gentlemen will let a good idea fly if it is not on their dogma sheet.  Had I been alive during the FDR adminidtration I would have disagreed with many of his recovery programs, but he was the last leader America elected who had the pragmatic sense of listening to critiques and shaping them into his own programs. 
    Ron Paul’s non-intervention policy is the geography analogue to denying evolution.  Our world is interconnected and what happens over there affects us here.  Straight of Hormuz, the Red Sea, the Suez Canal, Panama Canal, Straight of Mallaca, Formosa, et al are all chokepoints that are bordered by unstable or antagonistic governments.  All of our commerce passes through these strategic areas or the commerce of our friends to whom we depend for trade.  Ron Paul is idealistic, anachronistic, and dangerous to the prosperity of this country.
    His domestic fiduciary ideas are spot on…except the whole gold standard thing.

    • David Reber

      Your ideas are quite naive and in many cases you have the cart before the horse.  Many regions of the world are in fact destablized because we ourselves caused it to be so.  Please tell me how a nation like Iran who has never invaded any of its neighbors is antagonistic.  You feel that our bombing of other nations and occupation of 130 countries is not antagonistic?

      Secondly I put Ron Paul’s currency knowledge for above that of your own.  A fiat currency is the government’s tool to enslave its populace in debt.  There is no empire that has lasted as they all collapse under the weight of its own debt, while inflation spins out of control

      • shawnmcarter

        How is Iran antagonistic?  Is this a serious question?  I’ll leave their funding of terror organizations aside because Ron Paul followers generally don’t care about the deaths and mutilations of Colombians and especially Israelis. You probably believe the people of Israel deserve to have a rain of Iranian made, procures, and delivered weapons land on civilian targets. Iran just spent the summer exercising the closing of the Straight of Hormuz which would be a casus belli for The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Oman, UAE, Kuwait, and Iraq.  It seems to me that denying your neighbors much less the rest of the world freedom of navigation of international waters is the definition of antagonistic.  But that’s our fault too, I guess.

        • David Reber

          I want you to think about the SOURCE of these problems.  Do you really think that Iran, a nation that has not invaded anyone is going to launch a nuclear missile at Israel?  Israel has an estimated 80 nuclear weapons and some of the most elite fighting forces in the world.  You of course have undeniable proof that they are funding terrorist, right?  Even if they are do you know why they would do such a thing?

          Have you studied the history of Iran, its CIA led coup in 1953 where we initiaited the overthrow of Mossadeq and installed the Shah?  You are aware that we gave Saddam Hussein money and weapons which he used against the Iranians in a war that killed nearly 250,000 Iranians.

          We have so many problems in this nation that we need to fix first.  We cannot afford to continue the spending overseas.

        • phylax

          In 1953 Iran’s democratically-elected president was deposed by our CIA at the behest of British oil interests.  For the next twenty+ years we supported the dictatorship of the Shah.  Then we fomented and financed the Iran/Iraq war after which we picked off the weakened Iraq and now are poised to take on Iran.   

    • phylax

      The world is interconnected because a centralized, Rothschild banking system owns, runs, and profits from the entire show -  with few exceptions – Iran, Sudan, North Korea, Cuba, and until six months ago – Libya. 

      • dontB evil

        Oh My God – your talking about the  “Axis of Evil” (Trademark of Bush)

        You are absolutely correct – the “War on Terror” is actually the “War against any one opposing the Fiat monetary system created by centrally owned private banks”

        • Brad Erthal

          Which is why Bush was so gung-ho about invading China?

      • David Bailey

        You forgot Afghanistan and Iraq..

        • phylax

          They weren’t on the current list.  A new, Rothschild, central bank was set up in Benghazi before Gadhafi was deposed and long before the fighting was over.  First things first.  The world’s largest, most expensive embassy is the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and it wouldn’t be surprising if part of the complex includes a new bank.

      • Brad Erthal

        A list of vibrant economies right there. I’ve been to Cuba. You don’t want Cuba’s monetary system, trust me. 

        • phylax

          Then they should look forward to their very own Rothschild central bank.

          • Brad Erthal

            If there’s really a global conspiracy to make our economy different from those of Cuba and North Korea, then we should thank our secret overlords. 

          • phylax

            The program of dominion over all the world’s money and resources has been in operation for several hundred years and is at the root of every war and every depression. In our own country the establishment of a foreign controlled central bank was pressed by Alexander Hamilton but when its charter ran out and Andrew Jackson refused to renew it he was the subect of an assassination attempt. Abraham Lincoln financed the Civil War by issuing our own money – greenbacks and for that he was successfully assassinated. The War of 1812 was fought over the U.S. refusal to allow the establishment of such a bank. The Federal Reserve is a privately-owned bank that counterfeits money and lends that funny money to the U.S. at interest. What a deal!

            North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Sudan, and until six months ago, Libya are the last of countries with independent national banks. If the pressures of blockade do not suffice then countries are taken by military force. Even before the fighting was over in Libya last summer a new, foreign-owned bank was established in Benghazi to compete with the very successful national bank of Libya.

            You should watch two documentaries on the subject – The Money Masters and The Secret of Oz

          • Brad Erthal

            Wait, so the rich countries have been helped by falling to this conspiracy, and Abe Lincoln was accomplished for pushing forward the agenda of the conspiracy by issuing paper money? That’s odd. 

          • phylax

            Before you say more please watch the videos I recommended. They are on YouTube. They are both long, but The Secret of Oz is the shorter of the two and the most recent.

          • Brad Erthal

            Stopped watching “The Money Masters” when I realized that they were talking about fractional reserve banking and listed the consequences of leverage, which is a different thing.

            They don’t even know how basic banking works, and this is more or less a monetary history for dummies with frequent errors and even more frequent hyperbolic commentary. 

          • phylax

            You must have stopped five minutes into it. Too bad.

          • Brad Erthal

            More like 15. And that’s longer than the guys who made it got into the eleventh grade. Waste of my time to watch any longer than that. 

          • phylax
          • Brad Erthal

            Actually, he didn’t. Friedman thought that the Fed should be constrained to rules. He did not buy into the anti-Semitic theory that the Rothschilds run the world. Have whatever beliefs you want, but don’t besmirch a brilliant man by claiming that he shared your paranoid and racist worldview. 

          • phylax

            Why is it anti-Semitic to acknowledge that the Rothschilds are Jews? Friedman complimented the makers of “The Money Masters” and though he too is a Jew he did not complain about anti-Semitism.

  • Jeb

    Some of you didn’t see the “Please Don’t Feed the Ron Paul Supporters” sign so allow me to intervene before the CW servers are overloaded.

    To Ron Paul supporters: You aren’t going to convince anybody when 30 of you show up and bombard a website with cries of corporate owner media blocking your message when it isn’t a problem with getting your message heard; it is a problem with people not agreeing with your message. Your problems are no different than any other political group trying to gain relevancy when they are outside of the mainstream. By all means, continue to make the case… but try and dial it down a notch from Bieber-fever to somewhere in the realm of not-creepy.

    To Ron Paul opponents/people that just don’t care and think RP supporters are walking late night comedy jokes: Does anybody seriously think these people will be convinced of anything that doesn’t come out of RP’s mouth? Please quit feeding them.

    • Joseph Brown

      I was having fun arguing with the few of them who were here when this started, but now it’s out of control. You take one of these idiots down and five more pop up with the same dumb arguments. I’m done.

      • phylax

        Joseph Brown says:  “You take one of these idiots [Paul supporters] down and five more pop up.”

        That’s what is known as a genuine grassroots movement.  For the first time in most people’s memories there is a sense that people are coming together – setting aside the peripheral issues that have divided them - and are rallying around solid principles as Americans. 

        • Matthew Bailey

          I think Obama’s 2008 Presidential Campaign would like to have a word with you about that lie.

          • lifeandliberty2012

            I think those of us you like to call liars would like to have a word with you in a private room. Let’s see if you will stand by your insults and if you will say we are lying then? You give no proof that he has lied and yet you say he does.  

            I already know how you are going to respond so why don’t you save yourself time and not bother responding but wait to vote for a fellow a-hole in an election.

          • Brad Erthal

            “a word with you in a private room.” 

            You’re really bad at this whole tactic of threatening people into silence. 

          • Matthew Bailey

            Do u lyke dagz?

  • RockForty


  • Brian

    I wish I had written this.  So well said.  Thank You

  • RobertFallin

    By my estimates, the only people worth knowing are those with whom you would “share a fox hole”.  Well, Shawn, you are one of those people and so is Ron Paul.  We can count on each other to “watch our ’6′”.  

  • Albert Meyer

    Voters who want wars, torture, assassinations, “humanitarian” bombings in oil rich countries, indefinite detentions, drone attacks that kill the innocent, erosion of civil liberties, domestic war on the people (drug war), out-of-control debt and spending, graft and greed, crony capitalism, pandering to special interests, bailouts, more of the same, must NOT vote for Ron Paul.

    Voters who want peace, a humane foreign policy, restoration of civil liberties, an end to the war on drugs, sound money, balanced budgets, honesty, integrity and transparency in government, and a President wholly committed to Constitutional government can vote for Ron Paul.

    Ain’t that difficult a choice.

    • Jeb

       I can’t believe I’m going against my own advice to avoid the attack of the drones, but this post made me sigh, roll my eyes, and punch my monitor all at the same time.

      You are telling me that if I don’t vote for your candidate, that I am pro-torture, pro-assassination, pro-bombing, yada, yada, yada? Yep.. that sounds like me. Death, destruction, and oppressing the down-trodden. If I were you and truly saw things that way, and realized that I lived in a country where the only anti-death-and-destruction candidate receives as little serious consideration as RP does, then I might consider moving.

      You sound no different than Biden saying that crime and rape will go up if Republicans were voted into office in 2010, or Republicans saying that Obama will rewrite the constitution if re-elected. My choices look pretty slim… go with Dems unless I’m pro-rape, go with Repubs unless I’m pro-Communism, or go with RP unless I’m pro-death. Hmmm….

      • flyerfandan999

        I take the post to mean that if you do vote for the “other guys,” don’t be surprised if they continue to do what they’ve been doing.

        If you vote for Rep. Paul, you should expect that if elected, he will do everything he can to stop the ennumerated activities.

        Since the likelihood of a person’s one vote actually deciding a presidential election is zero, a thinking person should consider what his/her vote actually does.  I think my vote is my voice, telling people what I want.  My vote for Rep. Paul tells others that I want what he is talking about.  I just can’t see any sense in voting for someone who promises to deliver something I don’t want.

        • Albert Meyer

           Nothing like the truth to roil the gullible. More of the same does not cut it for us.

      • David Bailey

        Please just go google NDAA or assassination of american citizens. Both Obama and Romney have endorsed these policies. Ron Paul is the only candidate who does not.. If you don’t like those blatantly unconstitutional and thus illegal laws/actions, you’re obligated to vote Ron Paul.

        • Matthew Bailey

          How about if you don’t want the state and local governments to be able to regulate what goes on in your bedroom or a woman’s vagina? Ron Paul says that they should be able to do those things despite that being blatantly unconstitutional. Obviously you’re obligated to vote for someone besides Ron Paul.

          Do you see how this line of arguing makes no sense? You have to take politicians as a whole, the good and the bad. You’re pointing out problematic positions that politicians have, but you’re completely ignoring problematic positions your candidate has.

          • lifeandliberty2012

            You are really f-ing dumb or a lying scumbag but it doesn’t much matter which one it is since your characterization of Paul’s positions are wrong which means you are a dumb s-head or a lying s-head. 

          • Brad Erthal

            So Ron Paul is pro-choice now? Huh, didn’t see the report on that. 

          • Matthew Bailey

            Look up Paul’s position on incorporation. “scumbag”

      • phylax

        People voted for Obama because they thought he would not behave like George Bush – even that he might join international human rights groups in prosecuting Bush for the lies and malfeasance of his administration. 

        Obama has not exposed the lies of the Bush Administration, but has based his own foreigh policy on those same lies.  He is supposed to be a “constitutional law professor”, but he can’t even close Guantanamo and release those people who have been held illegally for the past ten years.

        I thought most certainly he would veto the NDAA as a way of distinguishing himself from the Republican candidates in an election year.  But no, Obama is acting like a George Bush with protective coloring.

  • Mark King

    This is best story every! Kudos to the author!

  • Jeb

    Okay, I have one very simply question that does not require a history lesson or lecture about the Fed from RP supporters. I genuinely want to know the answer.  Before Ron Paul was running for president, who were you voting for? Republicans, Democrats, or neither?

    • phylax

      I have never voted for a Republican in nearly fifty years of voting, but the last Democrat I had any enthusiasm for was George McGovern, though I did vote for Carter in 1976.  I voted for the Constitution Party in 2008 and Pat Buchanan in 2004.

  • Michael Miller

    Ricky Bobby Santorum owns Alabama