Tag Archives: Newsletters

Matt Stoller Writes Wrongly Of Many Things

(since initially posting this, I have made a few style edits and added some text addressing the Federal Reserve, sourced from William Greider’s Secrets of the Temple

An analysis of Matt Stoller’s “Why Ron Paul Challenges Liberals”. I will point out that Mr. Stoller’s core thesis, “that the anger [Paul] inspires comes not from his positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within their own worldview” is very obviously flawed. The anger that Paul inspires in progressives can be directly linked to works – the newsletters which deeply violate progressive norms and the ideas espoused in Freedom Under Siege.

Of the newsletter articles, which include those that engage in racial slurs about the laziness of black people, talk about killing a black man and getting away with it, encourage paranoia over a race war, encourage nativism about the descent of the white race, encourage nativism over immigrants with AIDS, advocate the segregation of those with AIDS, Paul, either, at best, simply profited from but did not write them, or, at worst, was directly involved in writing (a paragraph of authorial marks linking Paul to the newsletters is here, a mention of an obscure word used both by Paul in Freedom Under Siege and his newsletter is here). This, in addition to what is stated in Freedom Under Siege, a book written by him, advocating the end of sexual harassment protection, the end of legal protection of those with HIV, AIDS, or other disease from being terminated on the basis of their illness, the end of civil rights legislation in general. All this is in opposition with essential progressive ideals, not a convenient re-interpretation or over-generalization of progressive ideals, but the very core of progressive ideals regarding the dignity and rights of a fellow citizen. It can be taken for granted, then, that the anger felt towards someone who is in such opposition to their ideals may well be over the ideals themselves, whatever the other traits of the opponent.

If individual A is indicted and convicted of deliberate murder, we might state that wealth, poverty, or political inconvenience play a part in the conviction if the evidence is non-existent or spare; on the other hand, if the evidence is strong, untampered, with eyewitnesses, then it can be stated that the conviction is sound, lies with the crime at hand, and whatever the other traits of the individual, the conviction lies with the crime itself, with the individual’s traits irrelevant. Mr. Stoller, showing either arrogance or an absence of intellectual rigor, concedes the crime, but somehow insists that the indictment and conviction takes place because of individual A’s traits.

I will go through Mr. Stoller’s piece in some depth, use well-known, mainstream, and reputable sources for my points. I will leave any commentary to the end, as I do not wish the analysis to be tainted with a pejorative tone.

The essay is structured around an examination of three presidents, Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR, their intertwined use of centralization of financial power, enlarged state power, and war-making.

Mr. Stoller:

What connects all three of these Presidents is one thing – big ass wars, and specifically, war financing.

American empire precedes the federal reserve, and war financing took place outside these presidents. The Revolutionary War involved huge debts and the payment of soldiers in scrip, due to the lack of hard currency. A list of those principally culpable for the formation of American empire would not contain these three.

The major elements of the foundation of american empire would include the overthrow and seizure of the Hawaii kingdom by William McKinley for the convenience of the island’s wealthy planter class and white minority; the Spanish-American War, again under McKinley, which gave the US virtual rule over Cuba through the Platt amendment, to the great benefit of sugar and coffee plantation owners, to the great adversity of their laborers; the acquisition of the Phillipines for strategic and commercial advantage. The case for seizure of the Phillipines was opposed on the basis that it was an imperialist power-grab; it was argued for on the grounds that Filipinos were too racially inferior to handle their own sovereignty. These ideas of the inherent inferiority of certain racial groups show up, of course, in Ron Paul’s publications.

Under another republican, Theodore Roosevelt, the Panama independence movement was backed through funding and gunboats. After, Roosevelt formulates his doctrine that gives the United States the right to intercede in any part of the hemisphere it sees fit. Nations in the hemisphere must show “reasonable efficiency and decency in social and political matters, if it keeps order and pays its obligations”, or they may face intervention. This happens under Taft, another republican, in Nicaragua, where the reformist president Jose Santos Zelaya was overthrown for the benefit of american mining interests. A similar coup took place under Honduras, again under Taft, again under the basis of the Roosevelt doctrine, this time for wealthy american landowners. I do not see Taft and Roosevelt in Stoller’s list of miscreants; Paul, in his newsletter, was disgusted at the return of the Panama Canal to its territory, blaming, as usual, the Trilateral Commission and David Rockefeller.

I make these points without citation because they are well-known; I consulted Stephen Kinzer’s Overthrow when writing this for the part on the foundation of american empire, and Ron Chernow’s Alexander Hamilton for the few sentences on the Revolutionary War.

Moving on,

If you think today’s deficits are bad, well, Abraham Lincoln financed the Civil War pretty much entirely by money printing and debt creation, taking America off the gold standard.

He did not take America off the gold standard; paper money was issued, but gold coins remained in circulation, and gold was still used to pay interest on bonds and tariffs. You cannot take a nation off the gold standard, if gold and gold currency is still being used for payment. A table showing the various currencies in circulation – gold coin, gold certificate, paper currency – can be found in A Monetary History of the United States by Milton Friedman and Anna Jacobson Schwartz, page 43.

The argument made at the time was that paper currency was already in existence alongside metallic currency. From Battle Cry Of Freedom by James McPherson:

“Every intelligent man knows that coined money is not the currency of the country,” said Republican Representative Samuel Hooper of Massachusetts. State banknotes—many of them depreciated and irredeemable — were the principal medium of exchange. The issue before Congress was whether the notes of a sovereign government had “as much virtue…as the notes of banks which have suspended specie payments.”

Lincoln did not take such action, unilaterally, but with the support of business, banks, and a majority vote from Congress.

Continuing with Mr. Stoller:

The dollar then became the national currency, and Lincoln didn’t even back those dollars by gold (and gold is written into the Constitution).

Gold is not written into the constitution. The coinage of money is written into the constitution. The argument that currency must be metallic derives from a literal reading of this federal power:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

The counterargument is that paper money, as stated by representative Hooper, in the previous quote, was already in use. Paper scrip had been used in payment during the revolutionary war. The insistence that “coin” must imply gold or silver is necessary to make the argument against paper currency, since any metallic currency, without rarer metals such as gold and silver, might be as plentiful as one of paper.

This financing of the Civil War was upheld in a series of cases over the Legal Tender Act of 1862.

I’m not sure what is meant by “upheld”, since the first of the cases over the Legal Tender Act, Hepburn v. Griswold, was heard in 1870, years after the war was over.

Prior to Lincoln, it was these United States. Afterwards, it was the United States.

No, prior to Lincoln it was the United States. After, it was the United States. The constitutional preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What changes is that prior to the Civil War, there is the implication that the United States are. From Christopher Hitchens’ Thomas Jefferson: Author of America, following the Louisiana Purchase:

When the treaty was signed, [diplomat and Jefferson friend] Robert Livingston probably spoke for a majority in saying, “From this day, the United States take their place among the powers of first rank.” (Pause to note the locution: it was not until after Gettysburg that Americans began to say “the United States is” rather than “the United States are.”)

The essay then moves on to Woodrow Wilson. I would like to take the time to point out a sentence in this section, not for its factual falsehood, but strange, sloppy thinking:

Like Lincoln, [Wilson] set up a tremendous war financing vehicle to centralize capital flows and therefore, political authority.

The sentence implies, perhaps inadvertently, a Confederate reading of Lincoln. War financing was set up in order to centralize capital flows and political authority. War financing is not set up for war itself, in this case, Confederate insurrection (or “insurrection”, in quotation marks, as Ron Paul writes in Freedom Under Siege), but for the purpose of centralizing capital flows and political authority. War is waged, not out of necessity, but for the selfish purpose that the president be able to make himself tyrant. That’s an extraordinary claim, and I hope that sentence is not making it.

There is also this sentence:

In many ways, Wilson set up the rudiments of America’s police state, and did so arguably to help a transatlantic Anglo-American banking elite.

It makes a claim that is extraordinarily large and dangerous, yet is entirely vague and contains no facts. It may or may not be refutable, since it only makes a claim without factual citation. It reminds me of nothing so much as the sentence, “The Trilateral Commission is no longer known only by those who are knowledgeable about international conspiracies, but is routinely mentioned in the daily news. Evidence of its influence on the Republican and Democratic administrations is all about us”, from the Ron Paul Freedom Report 1978.

Back to Mr. Stoller, who begins his critique of Wilson with the president’s establishment of the Federal Reserve:

On to Woodrow Wilson. Wilson signed the highly controversial Federal Reserve Act in 1913; originally, the Federal Reserve system was supposed to discount commercial and agricultural paper. Government bonds were not really considered part of the system’s mandate. But what happened the next year? Yes, World War I.

This link between the purchase of government bonds being driven by a war funding decision is, again, wrong. The initial decision to buy bonds came not from the Reserve, but from the Reserve Banks, and was taken not for the purpose of funding or regulation, but because government paper was a sound place for keeping funds. From the sane, skeptical, but non-conspiratorial (despite the title) look at the Federal Reserve, William Greider’s Secrets Of The Temple: How The Federal Reserve Runs The Country:

The twelve Reserve Banks formed their alliance against Washington around an issue that, at the time, seemed a peripheral question – the buying and selling of government securities. The original operations of the Federal Reserve did not use the open-market purchases of U.S. securities as the means to create new money or extinguish it. Money was created entirely through the Discount windows at the twelve Reserve Banks. Instead of buying or selling government notes and bonds, the Fed took in “real bills” of trade – the short-term debt notes that banks took when they lent to business and agriculture. When these notes were eventually paid off at the Fed, the money would automatically cease to exist. Creating money for real commercial transactions, it was assumed, would make the money supply self-regulating, growing and contracting always in step with the ebb and flow of private commerce and credit.

When individual Reserve Banks began buying government securities for their separate portfolios, it was not to regulate the money supply but to increase their own earnings. Treasury paper was a safe place to park idle funds and provided a modest return that would help pay for the banks’ operations. Most economists, inside and outside the Fed, did not grasp the larger implications – these random transactions were themselves expanding or shrinking the money in circulation. If Atlanta or Philadelphia bought $1 million in bonds, it was pumping high-powered money into the banking system – $1 million that would be multiplied by bank lending. If it sold bonds, the reverse occurred.

The wiser heads, including Benjamin Strong in New York, rather quickly recognized the connection. When Reserve Banks made open-market transactions, interest rates rose or fell, accordingly, in financial markets. On some occasions, there was plain confusion when one Reserve Bank would be buying bonds while another Reserve Bank was selling.

Strong persuaded the other Reserve Bank officials that the twelve Reserve Banks, at the very least, must coordinate their actions, a proposal that became the means for organizing the regional banks as a rival power center, independent of the Federal Reserve Board in Washington. The New York Fed, it was agreed, would handle all sales and purchases for the others managed in a way that did not disrupt markets. The twelve Reserve Banks formed their own Open Market Investment Committee to decide things. The Federal Reserve Board approved, apparently unaware that it was ceding control of a powerful monetary lever.

It should be emphasized that Strong’s action was not part of some conspiratorial attempt to go off the currency. Strong does not want to go off the gold standard, and fears this possibility.

Greider:

In 1913, Strong wrote to his friend Paul Warburg warning that if Federal Reserve Notes were made an obligation of the U.S government, they would inevitably constitute “greenbacks,” the fiat money that the Populists had sought. “If the United States government embarks once more upon the expedient or experiment of issuing fiat paper, although in this case supported by bank assets and percentage in gold reserve. the day will come when we will deeply regret it…”

Mr. Stoller writes of government bonds not being part of the original mandate; I am uncertain of where he gets this idea. The original mandate was extraordinarily vague, and certainly allowed for the purchase of government paper. Again, Greider:

The original instructions that Congress gave to the temple were vague (and not much improved over the years). The 1913 act said merely that the Reserve Banks should set Discount loan rates “with a view of accomodating commerce and business.” Credit should be provided to member banks with due regard to “the maintenance of sound credit conditions, and the accommodation of commerce, industry, and agriculture.”

From A Monetary History of the United States (my bolds):

Receipt of gold, rediscounting of “eligible” paper, discounting of foreign trade acceptances, and open market purchases of government securities, bankers’ acceptances, and bills of exchange were the means initially provided for creating Federal Reserve money, and the converse for retiring it.

Back to Mr. Stoller, and his discussion of the internal security measures of the Wilson administration.

Wilson also implemented a wide variety of highly repressive authoritarian measures, including the Palmer Raids, the Espionage Act of 1917, and the use of modern PR techniques by government agencies.

Here, one can argue that libertarians are wary of centralized financing and political authority for liberal reasons – the ACLU was founded after the Palmer raids.

The Palmer raids, initiated under Attorney General Mitchell Palmer, along with the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act, were almost entirely an attempt to destroy american organized labor, for the ostensible reason that they were part of a larger communist insurgency. The Palmer raids had nothing to do with centralized financing or authority; labor had been persecuted before and after the creation of the Federal Reserve.

The major target of the Espionage Act was the International Workers of the World group; it was government harassment done in concert with the vigilante group the American Protective League (APL), a private business supported organization, which placed operatives in bank and industry, who would root out any subversives, in this case, members of organized labor; nor would he have issue with the practices of private detectives and thugs in the pay of such business. It is a simple and obvious note that Paul would have no difficulty with the private persecution of employees, or the more loathsome business practices of the era which led to the formation of unions, that this is entirely consistent with his admitted writings on private property and contracts.

On to the Palmer raids: Mr. Stoller appears to give Wilson sole responsibility for the authority and supervision of these raids, which I find somewhat strange. The first Palmer raid takes place on November 7, 1919, not co-incidentally, an anniversary of the Russian revolution. On September 25, a month prior, Wilson has already suffered the stroke that destroys him entirely, making him president in name only. The Palmer raids were conducted entirely by Palmer himself, without any presidential oversight whatsoever.

Opposition to the Palmer raids came from within the Wilson government itself, with the Secretary of Labor, William Wilson, former coal miner, who now witnessed his fellow workingmen persecuted. Palmer made these raids in the fervent hope that they would help elect him president. His support at the democratic convention was derived from his strikebreaking and abandonment of anti-trust prosecutions, actions, again, which Ron Paul would heartily support. The opposition to Palmer lay not with any libertarian business owners, but entirely, again, with organized labor, who helped defeat him at this same convention.

Mr. Stoller takes what was fundamentally an anti-labour political action, of public and private powers acting in unison to deprive workers of their rights, not unkin to the anti-labour movement now, and somehow transforms it into something to do with the Federal Reserve.

The previous is sourced from the chapters “The Missing Years”, “‘Palmer – Do Not Let This Country See Red!’”, “The Soviet Ark”, “The Facts Are a Matter of Record” from J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and The Secrets, by Curt Gentry.

Now, FDR:

And finally, we come to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Roosevelt’s Fed is a bit more complex, because he did centralize monetary authority using wartime emergency powers, but he did so in peacetime. FDR abrogated gold clause contracts, seized the domestic supply of gold, and devalued the currency.

FDR did not use “wartime” emergency powers for this. The initial executive action immediately following his election, without congressional approval, was to make a de facto bank holiday official, a bank holiday that many banks, national and state had already taken. From Traitor to his Class by H.W. Brands:

As various governors watched banks in their states succumb to “runs”—uncontrolled withdrawal demands by depositors, which frequently ended with the failure of the banks—several pondered the drastic step of declaring “bank holidays,” that is, simply closing the banks to business. The idea, or hope, was that the panic would pass: that if depositors were temporarily prevented from withdrawing their funds, they would calm down and decide they really didn’t need the money. In fact most neither needed nor really wanted the money. Bank deposits earned interest; cash in a can in the garden or in a shoe box under the bed did not. If the depositors could have been sure their money was safe in the banks, nearly all of them would have been happy to leave it there. With this in mind, the governor of Louisiana declared a state bank holiday in early February. Michigan did the same at midmonth, followed by Maryland, Indiana, Arkansas, and Ohio. At the beginning of March twenty other states closed the doors of their banks. By inauguration day, the American banking system was nearly at a standstill.

Congress would give retroactive approval to this holiday, along with the power to open and close banks, embargo gold, and issue notes that would circulate as currency. Brands, again:

The law retroactively granted Roosevelt authority to close the banks and embargo gold, thereby removing any taint of unconstitutionality from Roosevelt’s executive action. Looking forward, the bank bill authorized him to reopen the banks when he saw fit, under the supervision of the comptroller of the currency, and to direct the Federal Reserve to issue notes that would circulate as money, regardless of the strictures of the gold standard, which remained technically in effect.

The second major executive action that Roosevelt asked for, and Congress granted, was unilateral ability to cut the budget. This was done to the detriment of the poor, as it was chiefly used to cut pensions and veterans’ benefits, which Congress very much wanted to cut, but were unable to do given the power of the constituency.

I have a very specific sense in mind of “wartime powers”. They are powers exercised by the executive, without approval of other branches, on the basis of military threat, whether used for military or non-military purposes. It does not include executive powers voted and approved by congress on the basis of a national emergency.

The abandonment of the gold standard is a combination of the powers granted by congress, and later congressional action.

Brands:

Deflation was an economywide problem, but because of their chronic indebtedness it hit farmers the hardest. Roosevelt had long commiserated with farmers, and even before the success of the bank rescue was assured, he turned to the farm question. There were two ways of dealing with low prices. One was to expand the money supply. This strategy was what the Populists and silver Democrats led by William Jennings Bryan had advocated in the 1890s with their call for remonetizing silver. They lost their fight in the election of 1896, and the country had officially embraced the gold standard—after decades of observing a de facto version—in 1900. Some silver-state Westerners still agitated for silver, but the first step in any systematic expansion of the money supply would be the abandonment of the gold standard.

Curtailing production would tend to raise farm prices, but not as fast or surely as increasing the money supply. Diehard populists like Oklahoma Democrat Elmer Thomas contended that every other effort would be wasted unless the president did something about money. Roosevelt’s farm bill passed the House in mere days and by an overwhelming margin—315 to 98. But Thomas stalled its progress in the Senate by proposing an amendment authorizing the president to expand the money supply by remonetizing silver, redefining the relationship between the dollar and gold, or reissuing the kind of fiat currency—“greenbacks”—that had circulated during and after the Civil War.

Roosevelt had known that the money question would come up, but he had hoped to keep it separate from the farm issue. The Thomas amendment made this impossible—as Thomas knew it would. The Oklahoma senator felt an obligation not merely to farmers but to the people of America generally. “No permanent relief is possible until the masses have buying power,” he declared. The way to give them buying power was to put money in their hands.

Elmer Thomas’s maneuver compelled Roosevelt to take a position on money sooner than he had intended. Roosevelt accepted the Thomas amendment, noting, however, that it only authorized the president to devalue the dollar. It did not require him to do so. “Purely discretionary” was how Roosevelt, speaking at a press conference, characterized his prospective power to expand the money supply. The Thomas amendment provided various methods of achieving inflation. “I do not have to use any of them,” Roosevelt said.

He wasn’t opposed in principle to inflation. On April 5, before the Thomas amendment came to a vote in the Senate, Roosevelt employed his new authority under the banking act to order private possessors of gold to surrender their yellow metal for currency. “The chief purpose of the order,” he explained, “is to restore to the country’s reserves gold held for hoarding and the withholding of which under existing conditions does not promote the public interest.”

The administration’s “monetary goal and objective” proved to be a managed currency, one freed of the constraints of gold. The gold order of April 5 was the first step; Roosevelt’s acceptance of the Thomas amendment two weeks later was a second. “Congratulate me. We are off the gold standard,” he told his economic advisers. Some of them sighed with relief; others spluttered with indignation.

Roosevelt explained that his acceptance of the Thomas amendment was tactical. “He said that the reason for the amendment was that unless something of this sort was done immediately, Congress would take the matter in its own hands and legislate mandatory law instead of permissive,” James Warburg, an adviser to [Secretary of the Treasury Will] Woodin, recalled.

Roosevelt may have overstated the hazard of a congressional diktat, but the result of the Thomas amendment, which passed the Senate in slightly revised form, and the House shortly thereafter, was to augment the president’s power over the money supply. As an indication of what he would do with the added power, he issued an executive order on April 20 forbidding the export of gold without license from the Treasury. More permanently than anything till now, Roosevelt’s embargo cut the dollar adrift from gold.

I have no doubt that Roosevelt’s actions, then and now, are controversial. To have a thesis, however, which argues about the intertwining of finance and military under democratic presidents, then to label temporary powers voted by congress to the executive in a financial emergency without any mention of war as “war-time” in order to make one’s case, strikes me as a little dishonest.

Back to Mr. Stoller:

[FDR] constrained banks with aggressive regulation and seizures of insolvent banks, saving depositors with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. He also used the RFC to set up much of what we know today as the Federal government, including early versions of disaster relief, small business lending, massive bridge and railroad building, the FHA, Fannie Mae, and state and local aid.

The Reconstruction Finance Corporation was set up under Republican Herbert Hoover, with this very mandate, to provide funds for reconstruction and relief.

After this overview of the three presidents is the main part of Mr. Stoller’s thesis.

Modern liberalism is a mixture of two elements. One is a support of Federal power – what came out of the late 1930s, World War II, and the civil rights era where a social safety net and warfare were financed by Wall Street, the Federal Reserve and the RFC, and human rights were enforced by a Federal government, unions, and a cadre of corporate, journalistic and technocratic experts (and cheap oil made the whole system run.)

And two, it originates from the anti-war sentiment of the Vietnam era, with its distrust of centralized authority mobilizing national resources for what were perceived to be immoral priorities.

I wish to focus on one point: “a social safety net and warfare were financed by Wall Street, the Federal Reserve and the RFC”. It would seem that both a social safety net and warfare would be financed by a labourer’s taxes, that this is the nature, say, of social security, with a portion of one’s wages saved for later needs. It also formed a part of the opposition to war, including Viet Nam, beyond the awful objectives and wretched nature of war itself: that the wages from my labour could best be served in schools, medicine, and food for fellow citizens rather than killing those in a distant place. By making the labourer beholden for his benefits to Wall Street, Federal Reserve, and the RFC, Mr. Stoller removes all agency for the worker, making him entirely a dependent on these powers.

When you throw in the recent financial crisis, the corruption of big finance, the increasing militarization of society, Iraq and Afghanistan, and the collapse of the moral authority of the technocrats, you have a big problem. Liberalism doesn’t really exist much within the Democratic Party so much anymore, but it also has a profound challenge insofar as the rudiments of liberalism going back to the 1930s don’t work.

It would seem that if the social safety net, warfare, as well as (though Mr. Stoller strangely doesn’t mention this), tax breaks and subsidies for large corporations were all funded by the contributions of worker’s wages, then the worker is not beholden to finance, not beholden to the military, not beholden to any technocrat. But no: Mr. Stoller has removed this possibility. And because the labourer, according to Mr. Stoller, is beholden to these, he is unable to make his own critique of the existing morass. He must rely on a degenerate conspiracy minded racist who stands apart from all of them:

This is why Ron Paul can critique the Federal Reserve and American empire, and why liberals have essentially no answer to his ideas, arguing instead over Paul having character defects.

Again, as stated before, Mr. Stoller leaves out the simple fact of a worker’s wages freely earned, with his own sweat, a portion of which goes to taxes funding all these things, in order to remove an agency and participation that the worker has, not as supplicant, but as an engine of all this.

I will make no statements derived from this analysis, as I believe they would be a little too passionate, and a little too defamatory. That can be left for another time, until others, preferably with a stronger background than I in economics and history, can examine Mr. Stoller’s essay as fully, or more fully and in-depth, than I have, providing either confirmation or dissent of what is written here.

For the time being, I will only say this. Mr. Stoller’s essay been praised as “genuinely brilliant” by Mr. Glenn Greenwald, of Salon, in his piece, “Progressives and the Ron Paul Fallacies”. Given the flaws in Mr. Stoller’s work, Mr. Greenwald has either barely read this essay, his knowledge of the economic and political history of the United States is very limited, or his knowledge of the history of the United States is very different from mine. I am told by many that my blog is barely readable; should Mr. Greenwald ever decide to barely read it, and declare me an authentic genius, I would be grateful.

Tagged , , , ,

AIDS and GRID, A Non-Ron Paul Explanation

At various points in Ron Paul’s newsletters, there are references to “GRIDS”, and it being the original name for the syndrome that would eventually labeled AIDS. This post is an attempt to clarify the subject.

From the Ron Paul Political Report June 1990:

Note: AIDS was originally named GRIDS–the Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Political pressure forced a name change to try to hide the origin of this plague.

From “Congressional Courage”:

AIDS was “originally known as GRIDS–gay related immune deficiency syndrome.” For political reasons it was changed to AIDS. “A whole political movement has been created and sustained on a single notion: homosexual sodomy.”

A few selected passages from And The Band Played On that cover the transition from GRID (not GRIDS) to AIDS, misstated in the newsletters.

It was at this dinner that [San Francisco gay activist, organizer of the Kaposi's Sarcoma Research and Education Program] first heard the technical jargon that would become the stuff of his nightmares in the years ahead – terms like geometric progression and exponential increases. Some scientist had come up with a new name for the syndrome: Gay-Related Immune Deficiency, or GRID. [Dermatolagist with the University of San Francisco Marcus Conant], however, wasn’t sure how gay-related this immune deficiency would stay. Viruses tended not to respect such artificial divisions among humans. Lymphocytes were lymphocytes, and clearly they were major taste treats for the new virus, whether they happened to live in gay bodies or straight.

By now, a dizzying array of acronyms was being bandied about as possible monikers for an epidemic that, though ten months old, remained unnamed. Besides GRID, some doctors liked ACIDS, for Acquired Community Immune Deficiency Syndrome, and then others favored CAIDS, for Community Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. The CDC hated GRID and preferred calling it “the epidemic of immune deficiency.” The “community” in other versions, of course, was a polite way of saying gay; the doctors couldn’t let go of the notion that one identified this disease by whom it hit rather than what it did.

If you don’t abide by scientific principles, chaos will ensue.

It was a fundamental tenet of [conductor of early studies of AIDS in hemophiliacs, Dr. Dale Lawrence] world. It was an idea that also recurred to him after he had flown up from Atlanta to join his boss, Dr. Bruce Evatt and [retrovirologist] Don Francis and a gathering of leaders of the blood industry, hemophiliac groups, gay community organizations, and assorted luminaries from the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. The Centers for Disease Control had hoped the new evidence of blood transmission would incite the blood industry’s two major components, the voluntary blood banks and the for-profit manufacturers of blood products, to move quickly to stem the tide of blood contamination.

It is at this meeting that a name is decided upon. Note that no elected officials are present.

In the end, everybody agreed that they should do one thing: Wait and see what happens…The meeting, however, did accomplish one memorable achievement. It was more than one year since Michael Gottleib and Alvin Friedman-Klein had reported their cases of pneumonia and skin cancer, and the epidemic still did not have commonly agreed-upon name. Different scientists were using different acronyms in an alphabet soup that further confused the already befuddled story of a strange new disease of unknown origin. The staffers at the CDC despised the GRID acronym and refused to use it. With the advent of hemophiliac cases, Jim Curran argued that any references to “gay” or “community” should be dropped and something more neutral be adopted. Besides, Curran thought ACIDS was a little grotesque.

Somebody finally suggested the name that stuck: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. That gave the epidemic a snappy acronym, AIDS, and was sexually neutral. The word “acquired” separated the immune deficiency syndrome from congenital defects or chemically induced immune problems, indicating the syndrome was acquired from somewhere even though nobody knew from where.

Tagged , , , , , ,

The Ron Paul Newsletters / Ron Paul Paper Trail – Ron Paul Political Report June 1992

(The following contains language that may well be considered offensive. This post is an attempt to make clear what was written in past Ron Paul newsletters. More information can be found here)

Ron Paul
Political Report

June 15, 1992
Volume VI, Number 6

A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism

The Los Angeles and related riots mark a new era in American cultural, poltical, and economic life. We now know if we did not before, that we are under assault from thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization and everything it stands for: private property, material success for those who earn it, and Christian morality.

This is America, 1992

Ten thousand stores and other buildings looted and burned, thousands beaten and otherwise seriously injured, 52 people dead. That was the toll of the Los Angeles riots in which we saw white men pulled from their cars and trucks and shot or brutally beaten. (In every case, the mob was not too enraged to pick the victim’s pocket.)

We saw Korean and white stores targeted by the mob because they “exploited the community,” i.e., sold products people wanted at prices they were willing to pay.

Worst of all, we saw the total breakdown of law enforcement, as black and white liberal public officials had the cops and troops disarmed in the face of criminal anarchy.

In San Francisco and perhaps other cities, says my coin expert Burt Blumert, the rioting was led by red-flag carrying members of the Revolutionary Communist Party and the Workers World Party, both Trotskyite-Maoist. The police were allowed to intervene only when the rioters assaulted the famous Fairmont and Mark Hopkins hotels atop Nob Hill. A friend of Burt’s, a jewelry store owner, had his store on Union Square looted by blacks, and when the police arrived in response to his frantic calls, their orders were to protect his life, but not to interfere with the rioting.

Even though the riots were aimed at whites (and in L.A. at Koreans who had committed the crime of working hard and being successful, and at Cambodians in Long Beach), even though anti-white and anti-Asian epithets filled the air, this is not considered a series of hate crimes, nor a violation of the civil rights of whites or Asians.

(pages missing)

Many people tried to buy guns. But, whoops, California has a 14-day waiting period. And just to make sure honest Californians could not get ammunition for the firearms they already owned (poor rage filled youth might be shot), Mayor Tom Bradley ordered all gun and ammo shops closed, a great help to criminals who had stocked up earlier, or who could simply break in and loot.

Another group that had stocked up were Korean merchants, many of whom defended their places with guns, and later were arrested for illegal use of firearms. As one told the L.A. Times, “Two looters entered my store; one left.” These Korean immigrants were the only people to act like real Americans, mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England.

White reporters and photographers who entered the riot zone were dragged from their cars and beaten. A freelance reporter for the Boston Globe was shot five times. The anti-white hate crimes accumulated.

In the midst of the rioting, Jesse Jackson and Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) spouted the pro-terrorist line that it was all justified because blacks “can’t get no justice.” The newsmen of the major networks interviewed them and lovingly bemoaned the “plight of the inner-city youth.” Liberal statist Jack Kemp weighed in with a victimological line similar to Jackson’s, saying we need more federal programs for the cities.

As the Establishment promised to spread more white taxpayers’ money around the inner city, the killers and looters spread their violence to Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Fairfax, and Westwood. A mall in Compton burned. But the violence wasn’t limited to the L.A. area. It extended to Long Beach, Cal. (where more than 500 Cambodian-owned businesses were torched); Seattle, Wash.; Eugene, Ore.; San Francisco, Cal.; San Jose, Cal.; Las Vegas, Nev. (where it still lingers as I write); Madison, Wis.; Birmingham, Ala.; and Atlanta, Ga. Terrorism swept America.

In Las Vegas, for example, a white man was pulled out of his car and severely beaten by blacks breaking up from an anti-white rally at 10:30 pm. The blacks shouted racial insults as the police carted him away to the hospital. The crowd then pelted SWAT teams in armored vehicles with rocks and bottles. Someone in the crowd of blacks shot a gun and the police responded with tear gas.

I’ve got a feeling that there were many more incidents of looting, fires, and violence that we haven’t heard about for the simple fact that the media doesn’t want us to know about them. Newsmen and editors are protecting us from the truth.

Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. The “poor” lined up at the post office to get their handouts (since there were no deliveries) — and then complained about slow service.

What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided.

Several days after the violence ended, we learned that there would have been blacks on the King jury–if the NAACP hadn’t engaged in jury tampering by telling potential black jurors that it was their racial duty to convict the cops. The blacks admitted this to defense lawyers, and were rightly excluded from jury. This is a serious crime, but the NAACP will not be prosecuted.

Imagine the irony. Blacks have whined endlessly that letting the cops off was “all white” (even though the jury included an Hispanic and an Asian). But it was the leading “civil rights” organization that is at fault for this.

What did Bush say about the riots? First he promised to have the Justice Department see if it could retry the cops for violating Rodney King’s “civil rights.” But what about the constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy? No one cares.

Then Bush promised an immediate payoff of $600 million to L.A. gangsters. When the liberals called this a “token”, he raised the amount to $1.2 billion. He has vacillated between pretending to be a tough guy and condemning the rioters, and taking up the Jack Kemp line that inner-city “despair” can be fixed through more federal programs.

But this is capitulation to terrorist demands. The advice some libertarians give–”don’t vote, it only encourages them”–applies here. We must not kowtow to the street hoodums and their santimonious leaders.

At a Washington, D.C., rally two weeks after the L.A. attempt at revolution, many poured out to lobby for more money to be given to the cities. The most commonly held sign was: “Justice for Rodney King. Free all the L.A. prisoners.”

Now, consider for a moment what this slogan implies. Were they upset by the murders, the burned buildings, and the $1 billion in property damage? Not at all, except to use it as an excuse to get more cash. They wanted the cops jailed and the murderers, arsonists, and thieves set free. This came not from the underclass, but middle-class blacks and black political activists, who hold opinions not markedly different from the Crips and the Bloods.

But the Crips and the Bloods, it turns out, have been misunderstood, according to Ted Koppel who interviewed two of these animals. After spending several hours with them, he decided he liked them. Unfortunately, they didn’t pull him out of his stretch limousine.

Regardless of what the media tells us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to citiies across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots.

Many more are going to have difficultly [sic] avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual

The original pdfs of this: (p.1) (p.6) (p. 7) of this newsletter can be found at The New Republic.

Tagged ,

The Ron Paul Newsletters / Ron Paul Paper Trail – Ron Paul Political Report October 1990

(The following contains language that may well be considered offensive. This post is an attempt to make clear what was written in past Ron Paul newsletters. More information can be found here)

world…first by establishing socialist governments in the various nations and then consolidating them all through a ‘Great Merger,’ into an all-powerful world socialist super-state probably under the auspices of the United Nations.”

In 1986, in his last book before an early death, Gary urged us to Say No to the New World Order. He was a great man, and the prophet of our age. Gary, we miss you.

King City?

A mob of black demonstrators, led by the “Rev.” Al Sharpton, occupied and closed the Statue of Liberty recently, demanding that New York be renamed Martin Luther King City “to reclaim it for our people.”

Hmmm, I hate to agree with the Rev. Al, but maybe a name change is in order. Welfaria? Zooville? Rapetown? Dirtburg? Lazyopolis?

But Al, the Statue of Liberty? Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house.

Hate Crime?

Friends of big government, like HUD secretary Jack Kemp, can get away with things that would destroy an anti-establishment figure. Jim Watt described an affirmative-action committee as having “a Jew, two blacks, and a cripple.” and he wa–zoom–gone. But Kemp, pulling his car into a handicapped parking space in front of a Southern California newspaper, can say to an editor, “I’m handicapped–I work for the government” without being arrested by the Sensitivity Police.

Family Values on Pennsylvania Avenue

Doug Weed, assistant to the president for conservative liaison, was fired when he protested the White House invitation to gay leaders–the first in history–to watch the signing of the infamous Hate Crimes bill. Rumor has it that Weed also got in trouble for protesting, according to the Washington Times, an all-powerful “homosexual troika at the White House.”

Caring for the AIDS Patient

The government tells us that AIDS cannot be transmitted “casually.” The government also tells us that it should raise our taxes, and risk our sons for Saudi Arabia.

Recently, a non-government physician writing in Gene Antonio’s Healthwatch Report P.O. Box 90140-264, Arlington, TX

The original pdf of this newsletter can be found at The New Republic.

Tagged ,

The Ron Paul Newsletters / Ron Paul Paper Trail – Ron Paul Political Report June 1990

(The following contains language that may well be considered offensive. This post is an attempt to make clear what was written in past Ron Paul newsletters. More information can be found here)

terrible act–President Bush invited the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony. A Congressman Bill Dannemeyer (R-CA) noted, “It’s a tragic message that is being sent,” that normality and deviance are equal.

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 coincidence that the AIDS epidemic developed after they came “out of the closet,” and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy? I don’t believe so, medically or morally.

Note: AIDS was originally named GRIDS–the Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Political pressure forced a name change to try to hide the origin of this plague.

Further note: the largest blood bank in San Francisco succumbed to political pressure and holds blood drives in the gay Castro district; where the people give at three times the usual level. Either they are public spirited, or they are trying to poision the blood supply. There is a period of time after infection–perhaps as long as three years–when people can transmit AIDS, but their blood does not show the antibodies. And it is the antibodies that the blood screening tests use to detect AIDS.

As I have said before, DO NOT–unless your life literally depends on it–get a transfusion unless you have donated the blood in advance, or it comes from friends and family members you can trust.

Private Justice in New York

The criminal justice system in New York City is a joke. There are a zillion well-paid police, but they are of virtually no use. Not only are the streets terror zones, but home burglaries are not even investigated unless someone is hurt or more than $10,000 worth of property is taken! But the police and the prosecutors do tak eone form of crime seriously–competing with them. Defending yourself or others can get you in a lot of trouble, as young Kenny Mendoza found out.

Kenny, a 19 year old, heard screams from a woman in a neighboring slum apartment. Grabbing a gun and rushing up the fire escape, he found a 30-year-old pregnant woman held by a criminal with a knife against her throat. Kenny shot the man, who had a long criminal record, and as a result–instead of getting the medal he deserves–he is being indicted for murder and criminal possession of a weapon.

Several months agao, a gray-haired man was accosted on the subway by a gang of young pot-smoking, brandy-drinking animals. They started beating and kicking him after stealing his wallet and watch. When they pulled out a knife, he pulled out a gun, shot and killed one of the criminals, and calmly left the train.

The original pdf of this newsletter can be found at The New Republic.

Tagged ,

Freedom Under Siege by Ron Paul

Several great minds have had the same idea at once, and my mind has had it as well: to read Freedom Under Siege (PDF) by Ron Paul and see what can be found and how it connects with his newsletters. I leave in my points that are slightly redundant with those mentioned in Talking Points Memo.

The tone of the book is very close to newsletters; statements of extravagant waste or ludicrous events, rather than in-depth careful point by point intellectual arguments. A later possible task is to examine and refute the book’s criticism of the Federal Reserve, the necessity of gold backed currency, and the failure of the Marshall plan.

One primary point – though Paul has continued to deny that he read or was aware of the content of his newsletters, he refers early on, in this book he wrote, to an article in his Freedom Report newsletter:

Man, throughout history, has been tempted with power. Someone is always ready and anxious to use force over others, both within and outside of government, for his own interest. Some who reject the use of physical power over others and reject the material benefits of illicit power will, nevertheless, use government force to impose their social standards on others. It’s important to recognize that there is a difference between legislating morality and moral law.

The following is a Freedom Report essay written in 1982 addresses this subject:

Legislating Morality:

How many times have you heard it said: “Government should not legislate morality?”

When the liberals push laws mandating quota systems, integration of privately owned property, welfare aid, medical care for the poor, foreign aid to third-world nations or minimum wage laws, they do it in the name morality, claiming the nation as a whole has a moral obligation to fulfill the needs of others.

The rights of whites versus those of others comes up:

Every year new groups organize to demand their “rights.” White people who organize and expect the same attention as other groups are quickly and viciously condemned as dangerous bigots. Hispanic, black, and Jewish caucuses can exist in the U.S. Congress, but not a white caucus, demonstrating the absurdity of this approach for achieving rights for everyone.

This is noteworthy because it reminded me of this passage in “The Disappearing White Majority” from the newsletters:

What is often forgotten is how such changes affect our culture. Nearly every other group but whites are allowed a certain degree of cultural autonomy. Blacks have black schools, clubs, and neighborhoods. The same is true of Hispanics. It is human nature that like attract 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 neighbor hoods. The political system demands white integration, while allowing black segregation.

This passage, discussing the co-ordinated action of international bankers and socialist governments, all in conjunction with the Trilateral Commission, is similar to a newsletter piece on the Panama Canal:

The combination of liberalism’s naive belief that the world can be made a better place through socialist redistribution of wealth and the desire of certain international bankers to control the world through one-world government has brought us to a dangerous period in our history. Today the proposals of the Council of Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission have much more impact on policy than the Constitution. Sadly, world socialist order is of prime concern, not individual liberty, as it should be. This mixture of misplaced liberal idealism and the bankers’ goal of world domination, forces capitalists and communists to do business together on many occasions.

From the Panama Canal piece:

PARTNERS: TORRIJOS AND WALL STREET

These treaties were undoubtedly written by the banking and big business interests of Wall Street. It is no secret that Torrijos is in hock to the Wall Street bankers for nearly two billion dollars. Nor is it a secret, although totally ignored by the managed news, that Torrijos has provided a banking haven for the international bankers. Since 1970, when the coalition of Torrijos and the bankers became evident, the laws were changed to protect the international bankers. Before this, there were a few million dollars of assets in a few banks: and yet today there are 73 international banks with assets of nearly $9 billion conducting business throughout the world. Torrijos was unable to continue this partnership without an increase in cash flow, since his debt service to the New York banks was costing him 40% of his budget. The New York banks needed Torrijos to remain “solvent” in order to protect their direct loan investments as well as their special banking paradise.

The connections of Carter, and essentially all his advisors, to the Chase Manhattan Bank and David Rockefeller have been widely published in the open press like U.S. News & World Report. The boldness of those who once kept secret the relationships between the ruling politicians and the big banking and big business interests demonstrates an arrogant display of confidence on their part that’s rather frightening. The Trilateral Commission is no longer known only by those who are knowledgeable about international conspiracies, but is routinely mentioned in the daily news. Evidence of its influence on the Republican and Democratic administrations is all about us. Jimmy Carter’s membership in the Trilateral Commission is hardly a coincidence.

Here’s an astonishing point, that goes surprisingly unmentioned in the Talking Points Memo page, that makes the explicit accusation that FDR knew in advance of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and did nothing because of his own ambitions:

Twenty-three years after World War I ended, America entered the Second World War, largely as a consequence of Franklin Roosevelt’s interventionist foreign policy. An excellent description of this can be found in Charles Callan Tansill’s Back Door to War. From this outstanding historic documentation of what transpired prior to the war, it is clear that the United States deliberately provoked the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor for economic reasons. Since the United States had broken the Japanese code, Roosevelt knew exactly what the Japanese were planning. FDR did nothing because of his own political ambitions and his desire to unify the country in support of the war. By the early 1940′s only a small minority stood on principle and objected to our becoming allies with Soviet murderers.

Another point, astonishing for its lack of mention in the national media; Paul states that he views majority vote and the move towards true democracy as a threat:

Throughout the twentieth century, the trend has been away from limited government and toward big government’s intervening in every aspect of our lives. It has been financed with borrowed money and a fraudulent paper money system. We have come a long way from the Republic envisioned by the Founders. Today, by majority vote, government can easily cancel out the earnings or rights of individuals without any debate as to constitutionality. The only debate is between the competing special interests, deciding who will benefit and who will suffer. We are witnessing the end stage of the Republic as we drift closer and closer to pure democracy. Dictatorship of the majority is every bit as oppressive as the dictatorship of the few. It is also more difficult to attack, since so many accept the notion that the majority has the authority to redefine rights.

Next, a point that makes clear that Paul has no issue with gunboat diplomacy or banana republics; he simply does not want the state to pay for the gunboats and the republics. If the United Fruit Company or Anaconda Copper want to pay for mercenaries to overthrow a foreign government through paid arms and mercenaries, he is okay with that, and sorry that federal law prevents it.

There is no moral justification for one generation’s committing another generation to pay higher taxes, to suffer more inflation, to sacrifice the lives of their youth (uprooted through conscription) for needless armed conflicts. With a noninterventionist foreign policy, citizens would never be forced to subsidize or die for any special interest. Taxes could be used only to secure peace and freedom for America.

Under these conditions of nonintervention, of course, individuals would never be prohibited from volunteering and contributing their own monies to any foreign cause. Our government is the only legal dealer in weapons of war, usually at a high cost to American taxpayers, as well as danger to our security. Thus the wishes of citizens are violated with every transaction. Americans who want to privately help anti-communists in Cuba, Afghanistan, El Salvador, or Nicaragua should be free to do so, and yet they are not.

An internationalist foreign policy leads to one world government:

An internationalist foreign policy includes goals of one-world government and international banking with fiat currencies, and this leads to economic isolationism, where nations become more militaristic and nationalistic. Trade wars ensue, and protectionism follows.

A point made several times in the book: for America to survive as a free and moral nation, abortion must be outlawed.

For those who are pro-life, an analogy of the rights of the unborn to the rights of the teenage draftee are worth considering. If rights are universal, those two groups should be treated equally. The life of the unborn and the life of the 18-year-old should both receive equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court decision of 1973 said there was a relative value placed on in-utero life as being less valuable than extrautero life.

A decade of struggle has not yet erased this inconsistency, but if we are to survive as a free and moral nation, this decision must also be reversed. Without its reversal, the relative value placed on life will lead to infanticide, euthanasia, and human experimentation. History has proven this, and consistent conservatives have supported this view. Relative value placed on human life by conscription is not unlike the examples above, which are arbitrary and discriminatory. Good conservatives fight for the right of even an unwanted, deformed, unborn child to live, yet at the same time seal this same child’s fate through a lottery system that issues death sentences to be carried out on distant foreign soils for causes unknown.

A truly free society, dedicated to maximum liberty for all, that ignores the important issue of all life, including fetal life, will have a difficult time defending its position on other matters. Failure to deal philosophically with the issue of a three-pound fetus inadvertently born alive during an abortion procedure and subsequently drowned by the abortionist will discredit the freedom movement.

A calloused attitude toward the unborn permits a calloused attitude toward the newborn, the elderly, and the deformed-as well as toward all principles of liberty. We should be neither surprised nor shocked that we hear frequent stories of newborns being thrown in ditches to die. Vocal support for infanticide and euthanasia is now common. We live in an age where child abuse is of epidemic proportions. Our emergency rooms are flooded with battered children, and the social philosophers search for the cause.

Without this the erosion of liberty will continue. A careless attitude toward the sanctity of life can hardly prompt an energetic and intellectually acceptable defense of individual rights. No one I know, including those who accept abortion as an absolute right of the mother, relishes the horror of dismemberment of a small, but quite viable human life.

Society’s attitude toward liberty is totally dependent on society’s respect for all life. This problem is more an ethical one than legal. No legislation or constitutional amendment can instill this very-much-needed respect for life. Samuel Adams was right that no law or constitution can solve our problems if “the manners of a society are universally corrupt.” A hardened attitude condoning and encouraging abortion will do great harm in undermining all our efforts to guarantee one’s absolute right to one’s own life.

This connection between abortion, euthanasia, and libertarian ideas is also to be found in a newsletter article, the firstmost in the Ron Paul Political Report from November 1992:

And what of euthanasia? It is becoming more acceptable as the rationing of health care gains ground. Liberal pro-lifer Nat Hentoff described euthanasia as the legalization of ending life. The trend ends as it has in the Netherlands, Hentoff writes, where more than 1,000 people die every year from “involuntary euthanasia” (known as murder to me).

It is not difficult to persuade the severely depressed to go along with suggestions of suicide because the nature of the disease has them already thinking that way. Most physically ill people are depressed to some degree. “Their physicians were so consumed with compassion that they decided not to disturb the patients by asking their opinion on the matter,” writes Hentoff. With this trend in medical ethics, he says that the slope has now become a chasm.

I recently receive a call from a minister who is on a medical ethics panel at one of Texas’ major medical centers. He wanted me to speak there, to denounce these pro-death, unethical trends. But since he only has one vote, I don’t know if he will succeed. I will give you a follow up on this later.

Make no mistake: if our culture is not willing to recognize the value of life, it can never be persuaded to recognize the derivative obligations to respect private property, limited government, sound money, etc. That’s why the opinions of the medical elite are a threat to our entire civilization. (Want a copy of my latest book on abortion? It’s available for $10 from our office.)

I set aside this last part of this anti-abortion section. I don’t begrudge Paul his faith; I only think it should be made clear that he is often positioned as a sane secular libertarian option. His libertarianism, as made clear from this sentence, stems from a religious perspective. Liberty has value, libertarianism has value because of the spiritual aspect of life.

If life has no spiritual value, what makes liberty worth preserving? If life itself is not very special, how can working for liberty be justified?

A section on the draft during the civil war, part of a larger section criticizing military conscription. I bold a word that I find strange, given the context, for its quote marks.

There was one case of great importance in 1863, Kneedler vs. Lane, heard before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, where the issue of conscription was considered in detail. The draft was ruled unconstitutional, only to be reversed by a new majority on the court two months later. The complainants based their case on the claim that the federal government had no power to compel military service, even in fight of “insurrection,” for the Constitution says that “repelling insurrection and repelling invasion will be a responsibility of the state militia,” not the federal government.”

Later, in the same section, an inevitable battle between tyrants and those for liberty is anticipated in the United States:

The world today, just as in Lincoln’s time, is still in need of a good definition for the word liberty. But more than that, we need determined people who believe in and are willing to defend liberty. Those who dare to use the word liberty when promoting violence and tyranny must be clearly exposed. The tyrants must be identified and never confused as friends of freedom. If a battle must occur — which inevitably it must since liberty and tyranny cannot coexist – let it never be supposed that two factions advocating liberty are battling one another. The conflict must be clearly between liberty and tyranny.

On why women don’t need legal protection against sexual harassment:

Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity. Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable. If force was clearly used, that is another story, but pressure and submission is hardly an example of a violation of one’s employment rights.

Against legal rights for discrimination in hiring and termination:

The concept of equal pay for equal work is not only an impossible task, it can only be accomplished with the total rejection of the idea it’s of the voluntary contract. By what right does the government assume low power to tell an airline it must hire unattractive women if it does not want to? The idea that a businessman must hire anyone and is prevented from firing anyone for any reason he chooses and in the name of rights is a clear indication that the basic concept of a free society has been lost.

The basis for his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights bill; these ideas he still believed in 1988 when this book was written.

This means that all associations are voluntary and by mutual consent of both parties. Contracts drawn up without force or fraud must be rigidly adhered to. This sounds reasonable, and most people would agree this outline of mutually agreed-to associations. But it also means that free people have the right to discriminate – in choosing a spouse, a friend a business partner, an employer, an employee, a customer, etc. Civil rights legislation of the past thirty years has totally ignored this principle. Many “do-gooders,” of course, argue from the “moral high ground” for their version of equal rights, knowing that they can play the sympathies and the guilt of many Americans. Yet the real reason for some of these laws is less than noble. For instance, minimum wage laws are popular, but the proponents rarely admit that this protects higher paid union-jobs and it increases unemployment.

AIDS victims are frequently a victim of their own lifestyle. They should not have any legal protection if they are fired by an employer for simply having the disease. This is fairly consistent with “Flown The Koop”, “AIDSomania”, and “Congressional Courage”:

Victims of the disease AIDS argue, with no qualms of inconsistency about rights, for crash research programs (to be paid for by people who don’t have AIDS), demanding a cure. And it’s done in the name of rights. Victims demand health care as well and scream “discrimination” if insurance companies claim they have a right to refuse to issue a policy to someone already infected with the AIDS virus. The rights of the insurance company owners are not considered, while legislation is passed forcing insurance companies to provide the insurance demanded by the victims. The individual suffering from AIDS certainly a is victim — frequently a victim of his own lifestyle — but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care. Crash research programs are hardly something, I believe, the Found Fathers intended when they talked about equal rights.

The Supreme Court, in 1987, ruled that persons with contagious diseases are “handicapped” and are entitled to protection under affirmative action rules. If a person is fired because he has AIDS, typhoid fever or hepatitis, he can now pursue his case in court.

From the newsletter, “Congressional Courage”:

My old colleague, Congressman Bill Dannemeyer (R-CA), speaks out fearlessly despite the organized power of the gay lobby. He has become the target of violent attacks whenever he speaks, and he has even been advised to wear a bulletproof vest. Want to see why? Here are some excerpts from one of his recent speeches:

AIDS was “originally known as GRIDS–gay related immune deficiency syndrome.” For political reasons it was changed to AIDS. “A whole political movement has been created and sustained on a single notion: homosexual sodomy.”

“The average homosexual has 1,000 or more partners in a lifetime, and the average homosexual has only one sexual encounter per partner and never sees the person again after that encounter.”

From “Flown The Koop”:

[Surgeon General C. Everett] Koop then attacked private property rights and the real public health by urging that civil rights laws to [sic] applied to carriers of a fatal, communicable disease. And he condemned parents who worry about sending their healthy kids to school with AIDS victims.

The newsletter author has an obsession with David Rockefeller, and so does Paul in Freedom Under Siege:

Paul Volcker once admitted to me (to my surprise) before a banking committee hearing, that leaks did indeed occur regarding secret monetary policy. We also clearly know that appointments to the Fed require approval from the international bankers led by David Rockefeller.

Another point made clear in this book: while Paul views the state with animosity, which should not sculpt the values of any individual, there should be no mistake that he ultimately does believe that the religious life is the only righteous path. It should not be surprising that an evangelical should be able to vote for Paul, as long as he does not wish the state to actively sculpt the values of individuals through prohibition and other measures.

What one does with one’s life and property is a personal decision and it may or may not include religious beliefs. In a free society a person can “turn his life over to God” or squander it as he chooses. The important thing is that the state not be permitted to assume any ownership role of the individual.

There appears to be a binary choice, and a wasted life is one that does not choose the religious option.

Paper money is not simple economically inefficient but immoral:

Even if by some quirk paper money provided a net benefit to the economy, it would still have to be rejected for moral reasons. The power to create credit out of thin air is the moral equivalent to counterfeiting. Applying the Robin Hood ethic, robbing the rich to help the poor, cannot justify the process. Money creation dilutes the value of money already earned. It is a deceitful tax, unseen by all but a few and is equivalent to a farmer diluting his milk supply with water.

Also, paper money requires an authoritarian government. The use of paper money is what will trigger the fight between the forces of freedom and tyranny:

The breakdown of international trade eventually comes when enough people discover that the monetary policy is a charade and a fraud. A contest between market forces and government forces then erupts. The name of the game for the monetary authorities is maintaining power over the economy and political events. When paper is rejected by the market, governments inevitably retaliate by enforcing rules regarding currencies, flow of capital, financial privacy, and freedom to travel. The conflict is already visible and we can expect it to get much worse (including a new paper currency) before it’s all over. The monetary crisis will end when one side is victorious. If paper wins, an authoritarian government will be required. If gold wins, a free society will prevail.

There is one last interesting detail connecting this book to the newsletters, which I believe marks Paul’s authorship. He is credited as writing Freedom Under Siege; he denies authoring the newsletters.

From “Just Another Day’s Work for David Rockefeller”, in the September 1988 Political Report:

There is no “excess of democracy” this year, of course. The banksters have seen to it. One choice is George Bush, the Rockefeller candidate. No matter who is elected, the big bankers will be able to continue their policies of looting us.

This word “bankster” is an ancient piece of slang; it’s from the depression period, which fits with Paul’s age. He learnt it then, and still uses it. It’s been out of circulation since.

Harold Evans, in this article, “Banker + gangster = bankster”, provides an explanation:

Words pop in and out of our language as social conditions change. The American gangster, which is still with us, has been around as a noun and a reality since 1896 according to my Shorter Oxford, but it seems to have dropped another Americanism from the 1930s and I think now is the time to revive it.

The word is bankster, derived by a marriage of banker and gangster.

It was coined, as far as I can deduce, by an American immigrant, a fiery Sicilian-born lawyer by the name of Ferdinand Pecora. He was the chief counsel to the US Senate Committee on Banking set up in the early 30s to probe the origins of the Crash of 1929.

Ron Paul uses this same out-of-circulation word in Freedom Under Siege twice:

The bankers, by now more properly called Banksters, wanted the ability to inflate together uniformly. Why inflate? In the same way counterfeiting benefits the counterfeiter, so inflating the money supply benefits the banker who is in charge of distributing credit.

But at what expense? The banksters have deluded the value of the 1914 dollar to about eight cents. And its value is still shrinking.

So, this word that was entirely out of circulation ends up in an article in a newsletter Paul is associated with, but which he denies authoring, supervising, or even knowing anything about, and several times in a book he is credited with writing. I see the possibility of a distinguishing mark linking both writers, the known of the book and the unknown of the newsletters.

Tagged , ,

A Few Necessary (Possibly Last) Points On The Ron Paul Papers Here

First, I should say I am grateful to Mr. Ta-Nehisi Coates for the link here, by which the transcribed text may receive wider distribution. Second, I am grateful, again, to Mr. Jamie Kirchick for doing the hard work of obtaining these documents.

Given the current furor, I should state several necessary points.

I do not consider what is vile and offensive in these documents as having anything to do with libertarianism. I am in antipathy with several libertarian ideas regarding deregulation of markets, and in sympathy with many having to do with crime, surveillance, immigration and detention. What is said here should not, cannot, be connected or blamed on libertarianism any more than the prejudices of the democratic governors of the Jim Crow south be blamed on liberalism.

I do not work for, nor do I have any connection with, any of those currently running for the Republican nomination. I think all the candidates have been terrible, with the possible exceptions of Jon Huntsman and Gary Johnson, who make me think of Jeremy Irons and John Malkovich in Eragon, for they prompt the same question: “Shouldn’t you two be in a better movie right now?”

My reason for transcribing the documents is that after reading of them so long, when I finally did get around to reading them, I found the content far more vile, far more disturbing than I expected. There was no exculpating context. I would come across references again and again to Paul’s own life, which semmed to indicate that if Paul himself was not the writer, the writer was happy to pass himself off and be mistaken for Paul. We may well live in a period of faux racial crisises constructed for political benefit – Shirley Sherrod being the most infamous example. For all I know, there may well be a Fox News segment accusing Barack Obama of being anti-white because he was witnessed listening to a Brand Nubian song in 1990. I do not believe anything need be constructed or exaggerated in these documents; these documents are damnable in and of themselves. My only goal in transcribing the pdfs, and posting links in several places, was that they gain a wide a distribution as possible, that the full extent be discussed, rather than the fragments of isolated image caps. Should anyone copy what’s here in its entirety and paste it to a more visited site, away and apart from the idiosyncrasies of a blog first started as a keepsake for my idle thoughts, I would be entirely in favour of such an action. This is not racial shit disturbing for fun and profit.

I will also concur with Mr. Coates on the point made in his post here: that the motive behind the publication, whether opportunistim or heartfelt prejudice, is irrelevant. Were I a black man living in an area where a newsletter with the article “Blast ‘Em?” had wide distribution, I would feel a greater fear, genuine fear, for my life. I would fear that one night I would be shot and killed on the pretext that my cap and pants implied that I was a thief. I would fear for my life when I drove an expensive car, perhaps my parents’, perhaps my own, that I would be shot and killed on the pretext that I had jacked it. Any legal repercussions of my murder could be avoided by following the instructions in “Blast ‘Em?” That the writer of the article wrote it solely for a few extra dollars would do nothing to lessen my fear. That it had been done for a few extra dollars, not out of any great ire, would seem to mean that my life, lived or lost, did not mean much of anything to the writer at all.

A few last documents, less damning if at all, may be transcribed and posted here (should no one else do so) after christmas. They will, most likely be my last thoughts on this subject and Ron Paul. I am in agreement with some of his policies regarding drug legalization and the dismantling of many of the post-9/11 security state measures, while being completely at odds with his belief that the social welfare state be entirely erased. However: the issue of the continued existence of government institutions can be debated, pro or con; the prejudice expressed in these newsletters cannot. That there be a stigma attached to “Blast ‘Em?” or “The Disappearing White Majority” does not restrict debate on any legitimate political ideas or proposals.

I close by re-stating my admiration for Andrew Sullivan’s work over many years which documented and made unyielding criticism of the torture and interment practices in every part of the world during the War On Terror. I wrote an angry, critical post directed toward him at a time between his losing a dear friend and christmas. It is a criticism specific to an endorsement, and no part of a larger attack on the man. My criticism, I believe, is very much a part of his own traditions of skepticism and speaking truth to power, which he has vigorously, thankfully, defended. And I believe that to make what small efforts that one can to shed light on, and lessen, the indignities of one’s fellow man, is very much consistent with the good works of the figures, antithetical to each other as they are, of last Thursday and this Sunday. This is not racial shit disturbing for fun and profit.

I wish you happy holidays.

Tagged , ,

The Ron Paul Strategy Report – How To Protect Yourself From Urban Violence

(The following contains language that may well be considered offensive. This post is an attempt to make clear what was written in past Ron Paul newsletters. More information can be found here)

The RON PAUL

STRATEGY REPORT

1993 Ron Paul & Associates, Inc., Houston, Texas

How to Protect Yourself Against Urban Violence

by James B. Powell

Many successful Americans are well aware of the dangers that our exploding government poses to their financial health. Ever-increasing taxes, a continuing loss of economic stability and rights, as well as multiple assaults on our finances and investments, have dominated our attention for years.

Unfortunately, most Americans – particularly those who live in our nation’s cities and suburban areas – now face an additional challenge which carries potentially higher stakes. Those citizens must begin taking steps to preserve their very lives as well as their possessions from the wave of violence that threatens the foundation of U.S. society. For such individuals we firmly believe it is imperative that physical protection must now be given equal emphasis with financial security. To do less is to invite disaster.

Why There’s No Time To Waste

We are convinced that the 1992 riots in Los Angeles and other U.S. cities are just the preshocks of the holocaust which is coming to America’s urban areas. During the 1990s, the 80% of our population that lives in our cities – including nearby towns and suburbs – may expect to experience a terrifying succession of relatively short-term, but extremely violent periods triggered by social and economic unrest.

That unrest is being fueled by powerful forces that are likely to grow stronger as the decade matures. Here’s why our outlook is grim and our message is urgent:

The poor economy has eliminated millions of jobs. The effects are particularly noticeable in our cities and their surrounding areas. Structural changes in our economy make it unlikely that the job situation will improve, even when the cycle turns up again and many other jobs will be taken by our uncontrolled flood of immigrants. This ongoing loss of opportunity can only compound the frustration of our underclass.

Our irresponsible media is also contributing to urban strife by continuously fanning the flames of social outrage. Television in particular dwells upon our problems day after day, week after week, until the inevitable explosion occurs.

Also ominous for the future is the tolerant attitude towards looting and rioting that is held by many civic leaders. Even the more responsible among them feel that the lawbreaking is “regrettable but understandable,” a position that invites more outbreaks of violence. There are other more militant leaders, such as California Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who went on national TV after the 1992 Los Angeles riots with her now-famous cry, “No justice, no peace!” No one should be surprised when that call is answered.

Growing drug use is another ingredient in our urban pressure cooker. As the economy continues to slide, drug sales will go up and so will the criminal activities that support the habits. America’s drug problems, which stem from prohibition and bad welfare laws, are clearly out of control and bode ill for the future of all our communities from coast to coast.

Also ominous for America is the increasing organization and sophistication of our gangs, which are now statewide and even nationwide powers. These violent groups – which are the product of every race, nationality, and culture – operate with military discipline and efficiency. Even worse, recent FBI investigations reveal that our more dangerous gangs are preparing to help promote and then exploit the coming outbreaks of urban unrest.

Unfortunately the next explosion of violence is likely to occur sooner rather than later when a series of highly sensitive trials are scheduled in Miami, Detroit, Los Angeles, and a dozen smaller cities. As with the Rodney King trial in 1992, we can expect our nation’s urban areas to become tinderboxes.

Longer term is equally grim. Simple momentum is against a timely turnaround in our urban problems. If every social and economic inequality in America could be stopped tomorrow, a very large percentage of the underclass would still continue to live as it does today. Of course, we are nowhere near solving the problems. Instead, they are getting worse.

You’re On Your Own

Unfortunately, the level of government protection that is available during the widespread breakdowns is very limited. The 1992 Los Angeles riots are a case in point. Within an hour after they started, the police were completely overwhelmed. In the most critical areas, the police withdrew, leaving citizens at the mercy of the looters and arsonists. That scenario was repeated all across America as the riots leaped from city to city. Similar breakdowns occurred in the wake of the San Francisco earthquake, Hurricane Andrew, and other major disasters.

The lesson from Los Angeles and other area is clear: in a major crisis you are both your first and your last line of defense. You must also be your own store, your own bank, your own doctor, and your own everything else.

Measures That Increase Safety

Unfortunately, as the threat of an urban explosion increases in your city, there are several effective precautions that you can make to increase your family’s security. The measures have been thoroughly tested throughout the world’s more volatile areas from America to Afghanistan. When the preparations are implemented properly, they greatly reduce the chance that a disaster will seriously harm you or your family.

I. First, Secure Your Neighborhood:

You must begin your preparations with your neighborhood, your first and best line of defense. If your neighborhood is made safe from attack, you are likely to find that few additional protective measures will be needed.

Lessons from Los Angeles underscore the value of neighborhood security. On the second day of the 1992 riots, groups of armed men from the inner city began to move outwards towards the affluent suburbs. These violent opportunists were typical of their kind throughout the world. They were ruthless and ready to kill, and they were looking for quick, easy scores. Where they found them, they engaged in an orgy of pillage and destruction, leaving death and ashes in their wakes [sic]. But where they met with determined resistance, they left in search of easier pickings.

One place the looters did not find an easy score was a small neighborhood in Hollywood, an affluent community not far from the inner city. Within an hour the neighbors rolled Dumpsters from nearby apartments and businesses into the street to block access to the area. Then automobiles were moved up and arranged so that their headlights would illuminate the intersections in front of the portable barricades. Behind the Dumpsters, groups of armed residents assembled and waited.

Hour after hour, vehicles filled with thugs armed with guns and Molotov cocktails approached the barricades and looked them over carefully. Each time the outcome was the same. Arms were brandished and warnings were issued from the obviously well-fortified defenders, at which point the vehicles sped away. Only once did the neighborhood protectors need to punctuate a point with a warning shot.

When the crisis was over five days later, the street was intact. Unlike the devastation that occurred in so many other parts of the city, not a store had been looted, not a home had been burned, and no one had been hurt. Such are the rewards of careful neighborhood preparations.

II. Make Your Home A Fortress:

You must also physically secure your home against any likely urban disaster. If so much as a mouse comes up your walk, you must know everything about him but his hat size.

As with neighborhood defense, your goal must be to stop looters and arsonists at your property line. That’s relatively easy to accomplish if your make the proper use of walls, fences, decorative barricades, and floodlights. If any attackers attempt to get past your defenses. you will be dealing with them at a distance with all the advantages in your favor.

You must also harden the access points to your home with modern high-security Medeco locks, MAG Engineering deadbolts, Lexan windows, and metal-clad doors. Although you may not be able to keep intruders outside forever, the added measures will give you enough time to deal with them effectively. Suitable home safes from AMSEC and fireproof containers from Aladdin should also be included in your defense system.

You can greatly increase your family’s safety if you implement your home’s physical barriers with a good electronic security system, such as the excellent Keepsafer Plus. Such a wireless system can warn you of a problem before it becomes life-threatening. It can also let your intruders know that their presence has been detected. A good system can even initiate the first level of defense measures that you may have established. All in all, properly selected, computer-controlled security equipment is well worth its modest cost.

III. Prepare Your Household to Be Self-Reliant:

You must carefully stockpile essential equipment and supplies to sustain your family during the period of isolation that always follows large-scale disasters. Besides the certain loss of municipal assistance, you can also expect to be cut off from every product and service that you normally use to support life. Of course your preparedness program must be started well ahead of time. Plan for at least two weeks of total self-sufficiency.

Firearms for Home and Neighborhood Security

No defense system is effective if ir doesn’t include the ability to repel attackers with appropriate force. What is becoming particularly true today when aggressors are usually armed with the latest weapons. To engage such threats without the same degree of strength is to invite the worst sort of outcome.

It will be essential for each member of your defense group to know the circumstances during which the use of guns is and is not permitted in your area. In most states, deadly force can only be used to stop a clear and immediate threat to a human life when no effective alternative is available. If you are in doubt about your local laws, write to your city attorney for clarification. Photocopy and distribute and the reply to everyone in your group.

Because widespread firefighting reduces water pressure to near zero, you must put an emergency water supply at the top of your list. Buy industrial-grade water storage racks and containers, such as those made by Rubbermaid. Fill half of them now and the remainder at the first sign of trouble.

(floorplan for security system)

MREs: The Modern Survival Food

Modern military field rations are a significant improvement over the “C” rations of WW II and the freeze-dried LRPS rations of Vietnam. Although MREs (Meals, Ready to Eat) are similar to canned foods in that they are fully hydrated and fully cooked, they are pakced in tough, lightweight pouches.

MREs provide quick, nutritional meals that are tasty, hearty, and excellent for emergencies. The typical pouch offers 1,500 to 1,800 calories and consists of a meat entrée, a dessert, crackers, a fruit spread, cocoa powder, a spoon, and an accessory packed. Entrees include Chicken Stew, Beef Stew Spaghetti, Ham Omelette, Scalloped Potatoes with Ham, and several other popular dishes. Desert Storm troops loved them, especially after heating the pouches in boiling water or on a hot engine.

The shelf life for MRE’s runs from 5 to 8 years, depending upon the temperature where they are stored. Each pouch weights about one pound. The cost per meal is to $3 to $5. We recommend serving one MRE meal to your family per week or two during normal times, replacing emergency stores as you go.

Thanks to an oversupply resulting from the shorter-than-expected length of Operation Desert Storm, surplus MRE’s are now becoming available to the public. They can be ordered from many sources, including some Army/Navy stores in major cites.

Complement your water supplies with an emergency pantry that’s stocked with canned goods, dried foods, MRE military rations, and other non-perishables. Don’t forget sanitary items and all the medications that your family uses. Buy a military-grade medical kit, such as the Trauma Kit from your local paramedic supplier. Be certain that it is set up for major emergencies including severe burns and wounds. Use and replace the supplies on an ongoing basis to keep everything fresh.

Uncontrolled fires make it necessary to back up your other utilites as well. For your essential electrical appliances, you must buy a good home generator. Buy one that’s large enough to power your kitchen appliances, your TV, and a few lights. Get the type that charges batteries. The Honda EM2500XK1 is ideal for most homes.

Also purchase a good portable cellular phone, such as the new Motorola MC-310 that works independently of the normal system that’s likely to fail. Have a battery-powered raido and a good Uniden police scanner to stay on top of fast-changing events that could become threats. Also buy 2-way radios if you will be coordinating your defenses with neighbors: Motorola’s new Radius models are definitely the best. Batteries for everything should be the rechargeable type.

Lastly, buy top-rated family camping equipment from a reputable maker such as Coleman. You should have a gasoline stove, gasoline lanterns, portable coolers, sleeping bags, and other gear that can turn a disaster into a tolerable inconvenience. Include a tent in case you must run. Store everything in portable containers.

IV. Acquire The Means To Travel Safely:

Prudence requires that you have the means to escape the city if runaway fires or organized attacks overwhelm your defenses. In addition to having a well-chosen and suitably equipped vehicle, you must have a planned destination and carefully selected escape routes painstakingly worked out ahead of time.

Vehicle selection is particularly important. To survive the rigors of an emergency evacuation, the vehicle must have a steel frame, 4-wheel drive, at least 4,000 pounds of mass, a powerful engine, run-flat tires, electric locks and windows, an extra gas tank, and plenty of carrying capacity. A handful of vehicles, including the 3/4 ton Chevy Suburban, will serve magnificently if it is set up properly.

Planning safe escape routes is also crucial. Major roads will be gridlocked within the first hour in a disaster. Ditto for bridges, passes, and other choke points. Avoid routes that go by shopping areas and other prime targets of looters and arsonists. Think unconventionally. Look at your task as if you are planning an evasion and escape game – except it won’t be a game.

V. Disaster-Proof Your Finances:

Your finances must be made safe from any calamity. Your accounts must be changed to safeguard them from regional disruptions and they must be accessible from anywhere. You will also need an emergency cash reserve to see you through at least two weeks of post-disaster troubles.

Your emergency cash reserve should be first on your list: half should be in travelers checks, half in currency. Both should be in smaller denominations. Acquire your reserve slowly from a different bank than you normally use. Keep your reserve in a home safe until it is needed. If a disaster strikes, transfer the cash to European-type money belts that your purchased ahead of time for all the members of your family.

Since banks and brokerage offices are usually shut down or knocked out during a disaster, switch all your accounts to large multi-state chains that can transact your business from any branch in the system. You should be able to withdraw cash, transfer money, settle accounts, get emergency checks, and trade your securities, no matter where you are, by telephone if necessary.

Complement your disaster-proof accounts by arranging automatic deposits for your regular incoming checks. Get your institutions’ “routing codes” and “direct depost addresses” and send them to your employer, Social Security Department, Treasury Department, brokes, and so on as appropriate. Direct all your automatic deposits to demand accounts so that your money will be immediately available to you in an emergency.

VI. Relocate to a Safer Area:

Some situations aren’t worth trying to save. If urban blight is steadily creeping towards your door and crime rates in your area are exploding, your best reaction may be to leave. Even the Marines know when to retreat.

Relocating is particularly appropriate if you feel that you may be unsuited to the harsh demands of an urban crisis. If you are not physically and psychologically capable of reacting adequately in a major emergency, you could be risking your life to remain where you are.

Although uprooting your life and moving to a new area is complex, it isn’t difficult if you use the systematic approach that we advise. Examine your personal and financial situation, item by item. Write everything down. Compare what you would lose vs. what you would gain by relocating. Be certain to consider the savings that will occur from replacing a high-cost city life with living in a more affordable area.

Finding a new place to live that fits your lifestyle and your budget is also a task that yuelds to an organized approach. The way to start is with a good relocation guide, such as the Places Rated Almanac by Richard Boyer and David Savageau. Use the book to evaluate communities for critical factors such as size, climate, crime, education, medical services, housing, recreation, taxes, and others that contribute to, or detract from, the quality of life. Set your priorities, then find the places which fit the criteria. Investigate them in person.

VI. Relocate to a Safer Area:

If you’ve decided to remain in an unstable area, you must carefully implement the individual elements in your urban security plan. The best way to do so is to bring each element on line according to the level of danger that exists at the time. That will insure that you will have what is needed for the specific threats which are common to each level. It will also bring related elements of the plan on-line together.

THREAT LEVEL III is the lowest level of danger that exists in the modern American metropolitan area. It is the relatively quiet period that exists between civil emergencies. The main threats are “ordinary” but dangerous crimes against persons and property. Emergency services are intact, but their ability to prevent trouble is minimal.

This is the time to purchase and install your more substantial emergency equipment, such as your household security system, your generator, and your escape vehicle. Everything that takes time to integrate into your household should be acquired during this period. This is also the time to train yourself to use your equipment effectively.

THREAT LEVEL II is marked by a noticeable increase in social and economic tension within an urban area. Gang activity picks up. Crimes become more violent. There is a sharp reduction in personal safety. Emergency services function, but they are now almost exclusively a reaction force rather than a deterrent.

When this level of threat begins, you must increase your emphasis on personal and home protection. Remember that this level can change to the next highest level in a heartbeat. You must finish your preparedness program as quickly as possible. In particular, you should top off your emergency stores. Make certain that key products are fresh.

During this period you must also pay attention to signs that the situation may be about to explode into a full-scale riot. Monitor the news. Be ready both physically and psychologically for a total breakdown with possibly very little warning.

THREAT LEVEL I is the final and most dangerous level that you will face. A full-scale riot erupts with looting, arson, and wanton attacks on persons and property. Emergency services are no longer in control. You must be able to supply all your own needs for a period lasting from a week to 30 days.

It’s probably too late to get whatever you may lack, but you may get lucky if you are a few miles away from the riot and you act quickly enough. This is the time to get your family together and to activate all your disaster strategies.

As you make your final preparations, spend a few moments reflecting on how this magnificent country, “the land overshadowed with wings,” ever fell into this sorry condition. Resolve that when the crisis is over you will do everything in your power to make certain that such an event will never happen again.

We wish you well.

About the Author:

James B. Powell is widely known as one of America’s most creative financial and personal security consultants. For more than 20 years, he has systematically researched and tested a wide range of security and survival equipment and has consulted on family security matters for a select clientele. He entered the field when it became obvious to him that physical protection would one day, become just as great a day-to-day concern to upper middle-class Americans as financial matters, an observation that has certainly proven to be correct. His financial writings include several books and frequent guest articles in major investment newsletters.

Mr. Powell is the author of the new Urban Security Guide: Insuring Your Personal Safety in the Turbulent ’90s published by Globacor (Communications) Ltd. He also offers telephone consultations on the many topics covered in this article. For information on ordering the Guide or arranging a personal consultation with Mr. Powell, please refer to the Special Subscriber Offer which follows.

The original pdf of this newsletter can be found at The New Republic.

Tagged ,

The Ron Paul Newsletter Story That I Found The Most Disturbing: “Blast ‘Em?”

I quote it in full below, Blast ‘Em?:

If you live in a major city, you’ve probably already heard about the newest threat to your life and limb, and your family: carjacking.

It is the hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos. The youth simply walk up to a car they like, pull a gun, tell the family to get out, steal their jewelry and wallets, and take the car to wreck. Such actions have ballooned in the recent months.

In the old days, average people could avoid such youth by staying out of bad neighborhoods. Empowered by media, police, and political complicity, however, the youth now roam everywhere looking for cars to steal and people to rob.

What can you do? More and more Americans are carrying a gun in the car. An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example).

I frankly don’t know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.

Originally, a pdf of this newsletter was hosted at The New Republic, though this link is now broken. A scan of this newsletter (link to a png file) can now be found at “Game Over: Scans of Over 50 Ron Paul Newsletters” at the blog, Et tu, Mr. Destructo.

There are dog whistles about “urban” youth and “hip-hop” which become explicit when we reach the part of how they play “unsuspecting whites like pianos”. There is no possibility that these urban youth are anything other than black. These black men are on the prowl and stealing cars. Yet now they are not just in the cities, but everywhere. In order to protect oneself, one must carry a gun. There may be a possibility that you will have to shoot this man; but there may be complications if the police arrive, so one must have a gun that cannot be traced to you and be prepared to leave the scene. There is the chilling coda, chilling not for the violence it anticipates, but for the violence within this writer: the animals are coming. Since there has been on-going controversy over who authored these newsletter stories, I will point out that this is one of the many stories where the writer drops a detail which fits with Paul’s life, in this case, Lake Jackson, Texas, his residence at the time.

Perhaps there is a subtlety I miss, but this, to my mind, reads like nothing other than a guide on how to kill a black man and get away with it. Mr. Andrew Sullivan in defending his endorsement of Paul writes of a justifying context for such a remarks and stresses that they were made two decades ago. I find such explanations astonishing. Were I to find out that a musician or painter whose work I’d loved had written something so loathsome, it would qualify my admiration. I would expect any discussion of it to be blunt and forthright, no excuses over artistic temperament or the morays of the times. Is the fact that a white man could kill a black man in many parts of the country for far too long without legal repercussion to be part of the understandable morays that would permit a white man to publish such filth in 1992?

When I read this Timothy Noah piece on the new conditions the unemployed must fulfill in order to maintain their benefits, I read of a group of people who cannot fail at any obligation, whether it be GED requirements or drug tests, all while juggling family and work, without being chastised for their lack of accountability and irresponsibility. All this, while in a more privileged place, a man can write about how to kill a black man and get away with it, make a few mumbles that someone else was to blame, and his grevious irresponsibility is waved away, his shoulder given a hearty clap, and he’s moved a few steps closer to the levers of power and nuclear codes. There is a contrast that is wretchedly hilarious. The poor do not even have the freedom to pee when they want to, while a wealthy doctor can give out instructions on murder, and told he’d make a great president. All this because this good doctor, who views black men and women as expendable animals, may be the only hope for letting out some of their dark skinned kin from jail sentences for drug crimes that he views as one more variety of state tyranny. It used to be that some men and women had to abide every indignity of a slavemaster while hoping against hope that he would finally provide some mercy and grant them freedom. Now, their descendants must forgive the past indignities of Paul in the desperate hope that he, like Pharoah, will give their brethren release.

That Mr. Sullivan, who did brave, righteous work into the evasions of law that took place in Abu Ghraib and secret prisons around the world, could endorse the man who wrote this, after having read this article, baffles me. I very much want an end to the ridiculous costly prison sentences for drug crimes; but just as I can ask for such a rational, sensible thing as good roads from a better man than Napoleon, I can ask for such a sensible thing as drug legalization from a better man than Ron Paul. I can only think there is some detail of all this that has escaped me, that makes sense of this blindness to racial thuggery, that would make this endorsement other than an utterly amoral act. This is not a case where either Scylla or Charybdis must be picked. There is the possibility of finding all those in the Republican primary to be craven, fanatical, stupid, or hateful. If a guide to killing a black man isn’t sufficient cause for disqualifying someone of the republican nomination, I ask: how far will deviancy be defined downward for a presidential leader and the holder of the nuclear keys?

My post on the transcription of the Ron Paul newsletter articles can be found here.

(Originally, this post linked to a pdf of the newsletter at the New Republic site. On April 14th, 2014, this link was changed to the Mr. Destructo blog after it was discovered that the link was broken.)

Tagged ,

Senate Fundraising Letter 1984

(The following contains language that may well be considered offensive. This post is an attempt to make clear what was written in past Ron Paul newsletters. More information can be found here)

RON PAUL
for U.S. SENATE

April 1984

Dear Friend:

The media will tell you that the Kissinger-Rockefeller forces have faded away. But I know that isn’t true, because they’re working like the dickens to keep me out of the U.S. Senate.

Will they succeed? It depends on you.

Back in 1982 when Texa was being redistricted, they had their knives out. A top party official told the Dallas paper that the fatcats had passed the word to “(bleep) Ron Paul” because I wouldn’t do their bidding.

Why? Because the big-monied interests dislike our ideas as much as Tip O’Neill does. Worse, they’re a lot more powerful. But thanks to dedicated Americans like you, I beat them.

This year, the stakes are much bigger. The Establishment is scared to death about having our views in the U.S. Senate. The big-money men know I have been able to do some good in the House, and that my effectiveness would be multiplied a hundred times in the Senate.

Just the thought rattles their imported teacups.

Normally the minions of Kissinger and Rockefeller don’t intervene in Republican primaries. They’re too busy scheming to put your tax dollars in their wallets, through the IMF, the World Bank, and foreign aid.

But this race is different. In polo clubs and bank boardrooms, those who want to keep big business in bed with big government have set their goal for 1984–”get Ron Paul out of Washington.” They will do anything to keep your money flowing into their vaults.

Even Washington political figures, who never intervene in a primary, have made an exception this time, with dirty tricks and dirty money. They want to make sure that when the banks say Jump, the new Texas Senator will ask: How High?

Washington politicos claim to be upset because I’ve discussed the record of my opponent, Congressman Phil Gramm. They don’t want the people to know that Phil has:

  • Endorsed the Kissinger Commission and its dangerous recommendations;
  • Voted for big budget deficits — 10 times;
  • Promoted the unconstitutional TEFRA – the biggest tax increase in peacetime U.S. history;
  • Helped establish the federal Department of Education;
  • Urged more Food Stamp welfare – 6 times;
  • Voted to raise his own Congressional pay by $10,000.00
  • Asked to make Red China “most favored nation”;
  • Worked to increase federal spending by $100s of billions;

The political establishment doesn’t want you to know these things. Neither does Phil. He told me it would be unfair to mention his record.

But I wouldn’t mind him saying that I have: Never voted for a budget deficit; Never voted to increase taxes; Never voted to raise Congressional pay (I want to cut it); Opposed giving your tax dollars to corrupt foreign politicians (the homegrown ones are bad enough!); Voted against the Department of Education; Opposed giving one cent to Red China.

The National Taxpayers Union, the Council for a Competitive Economy, and the American Economic Council have said I have “the best record in Congress.” Phil Gramm, says the president of the AEC, “is a buddy of the Establishment.”

A Texas business magazine recently noted that many think “Gramm’s entire career bespeaks a man willing…to make and break any commitment on the basis of expediency, and take any short-term stand that will provide him a new trough from which to feed a gargantuan ego and to further unshackled ambition.”

Maybe that’s why Phil’s political cronies have been rolling in the gutter. In their attacks, they’ve hinted I was immoral, anti-American, friendly to socialism and Fidel Castro, anti-Christian, and a lover of illicit drugs! These preposterous charges would normally be laughed out of even the political arena. But not when they’re backed with millions of dollars, and highly paid operatives willing to spread them.

This may be a desperate attempt to obscure that, for example, in 1976, Phil supported Jerry Brown for president because of the fruit-fly governor’s bizarre economic views. The free-market views of the great Ludwig von Mises, Phil says, belong in the dustbin of economic history instead of in Washington. I was honored to get the Mises Institute’s award as “America’s outstanding leader for the free market and sound money.”

Phil Gramm, as a practical Keynesian, promotes big government while claiming to be a fiscal conservative. But he showed his true colors at the Committee for Monetary Research and Education when he denounced the gold standard. And he once said his heart’s ambition was to take Paul Volcker’s place as Federal Reserve Chairman.

It’s no wonder the special interests have shoveled cash into his campaign. His bank account is bulging, while mine is skinny. But I don’t worry about his super-rich friends. The truth, combined with people like you, gives me something he can never match.

Our polls show that the people of Texas are ready to support someone who can be trusted to do as he promises, and work for the free market, honest money, a balanced budget, and a pro-American foreign policy. Phil Gramm, who has openly admitted to not being his own man, can be defeated….if I can get my message out.

One newspaper charged that I would like to “take a chainsaw to the federal budget.” As a doctor, I’d probably use a scalpel, but the idea is right on target. Phil works to expand the government; I work to cut it. And my deeds match my words.

The Establishment has a big stake in big government, so it’s no surprise that Phil Gramm will spend $1.5 million in the weeks before the May 5th primary election.

If I cannot raise and spend $558,000, I will lose. I’ve enclosed a campaign memo with all the facts.

The preliminary signs look good. Ordinary people are changing their minds about who the real Phil Gramm is, and members of his campaign leadership have come over to my side.

I have found, in 140,000 miles of travel, that it takes me five minutes to convert an audience. Our ideas are that powerful. But there is no way I can reach everyone in person.

I must be able to get our TV spots on Texas stations, keep our offices open, organize our thousands of volunteers, keep our phone banks operating, print and mail brochures, and pay travel expenses. Not only to present our side, but to counter the opposition’s well-financed dirty tricks.

And not one dime goes to slick fundraisers. We must have the lowest overhead in America, thanks to the magnificent finance organization run by my wife, Carol.

My campaigns have always run on a shoestring. But that shoestring will do the job, with your help.

As a good supporter, you deserve the facts. My latest poll shows Phil Gramm still ahead. But he is headed down, and I am headed up.

If the election were held today, I would lose. But the momentum is all my way. With an additional $558,000, I can beat Phil Gramm. Without that money, about one-third of what he will spend, there will be champagne toasts on the bankers’ yachts, as I am kicked out of public life. They want me and our ideas out of Washington so badly they can taste it through the caviar.

But I’m not going to let them beat me…not if you’re on my side. I’ve always been the underdog in my races. Just as in the past, I can confound the powerful. But not without you.

The big New York banks and their pals in Texas, want me silenced. But the people want a man of principle in the Senate, not a compromising, back-slapping friend of lobbyists. But if I can’t get my message out, that makes zero difference.

Please. Send as much as you can, as quickly as you can. Every day, and every dollar, counts. If you could send $100, $75, $50, $25, or any amount, that would be great. If you can afford $250, $500, or even $1000, that would be magnificent.

And please send what you can today. I have never needed your help more. You and I can do great things for our country, but only if you help.

Warmest regards,

Ron Paul
Member of Congress

P.S. Every day counts. Please send as much as you can — right away. Carol and I will be looking for your envelope.

P.P.S. Please help me counter the lies, and spread the truth. I can’t do anything without you as my partner.

As stated, all transcripts were made from pdfs at The New Republic website.

Tagged ,
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 82 other followers