Perhaps the best way to get rid of Ron Paul is simply to allow him to be unplugged, opening his nasty little mouth, ranting about his libertarian ideas. The latest is that Social Security is akin to slavery. Yea, he said it.
“…“You talk a lot about the Constitution,” Fox News’ Chris Wallace noted Sunday. “You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.”
“Technically they are,” Paul insisted. “There is no authority. Article 1, Section 8 doesn’t say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution — liberals are the ones that use this general welfare clause.”
“Doesn’t Social Security come under promoting the general welfare,” Wallace asked.
“Absolutely not,” Paul replied. “Maybe sound currency is general welfare, maybe markets, maybe judicial system, maybe a national defense, but this is specific welfare. This justifies the whole welfare state. The military industrial complex, the welfare to foreigners, the welfare state that imprisons our people and impoverishes our people and gives us our recession.”
“That is such an extreme liberal viewpoint that has been mistaught in our schools for so long. That’s what we have to reverse, that very notion you’re presenting,” he added.
“Congressman, it’s not just a liberal view. It’s the decision of the Supreme Court in 1937 when they said that Social Security was constitutional under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution,” Wallace explained.
“The Constitution and the court said slavery was legal, too. We had to reverse that. So, I tell you. Just because a court in ’37 went very liberal on us and expanded the role of government, no, I think the original intent is not a bad idea,” Paul opined….”
The Pink Flamingo has been telling you for ages that Ron Paul is not a “real” Republican. Want proof? When asked why he was not running as an independent but as a Republican our favorite little demigod replied:
“…“Because we don’t have true democracy in this country. We lose lives going overseas, spreading our goodness and great democracy and we orchestrate elections. We don’t like them, we void them. We ignore them — I’m saying — if we don’t get the people we support and the people the CIA supports. But running as an independent here is just about impossible, unless you’re a billionaire like Ross Perot. You don’t get on the base. If I was an independent, George, you would not have me on this program this morning,” Paul explained….”
There are some who think that Ron Paul is ‘god’. He’s not, not really, just a petty, nasty little man who needs to be put out to pasture. He exemplifies what The Pink Flamingo finds so repulsive about libertarians. They pretend to be about freedom, but there is this very nasty little streak of racism that cannot be denied. Conservatives have been trying to expose Paul’s racist past and his associates for some time, but no one seems to care.
Naturally his brain dead, slobbering disciples will follow him anywhere. It’s a Ron Paul Bot thing.
“…Ron Paul doesn’t seem to know much about his own newsletters. The libertarian-leaning presidential candidate says he was unaware, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, of the bigoted rhetoric about African Americans and gays that was appearing under his name. He told CNN last week that he still has “no idea” who might have written inflammatory comments such as “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks”—statements he now repudiates. Yet in interviews with reason, 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.
Financial records from 1985 and 2001 show that Rockwell, Paul’s congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982, was a vice president of Ron Paul & Associates, the corporation that published the Ron Paul Political Report and the Ron Paul Survival Report. The company was dissolved in 2001. During the period when the most incendiary items appeared—roughly 1989 to 1994—Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist “paleoconservatives,” producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters recently unearthed by The New Republic. To this day Rockwell remains a friend and advisor to Paul—accompanying him to major media appearances; promoting his candidacy on the LewRockwell.com blog; publishing his books; and peddling an array of the avuncular Texas congressman’s recent writings and audio recordings….”
Yes, boys and girls, everyone’s favorite, whining demigod really did say this!
True to form, Ron Paul had barely been officially running for POTUS for less than half a day when he did it again. Once again he showed his nasty little racist side.
It happened in 2008, and it is once again happening because he just can’t help it.
“...MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews pressed Paul during a TV appearance on whether he would have voted against the ’64 law, a landmark piece of legislation that took strides toward ending segregation.
“Yeah, but I wouldn’t vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws,” Paul said. He explained that he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act “because of the property rights element, not because they got rid of the Jim Crow laws.”
Paul’s son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), faced criticism during his campaign for Senate last fall because of similar remarks he made, also during an appearance on MSNBC. Rand Paul had advanced a similar argument about property rights, and, under political pressure, issued a follow-up statement in which he voiced support for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and would not support any efforts to repeal it.
Some libertarians argue that the government overstepped its authority in the landmark legislation, which sought to ban discrimination by private businesses and organizations. Paul sought to draw a distinction between holding that opinion and supporting the segregation and other tools of discrimination that the ’64 law sought to abolish.
“This gimmick, it’s off the wall when you say I’m for property rights and for states rights, and therefore I’m a racist,” said the Texas congressman. “That’s just outlandish.”…”
This is what Ron Paul wrote: