Tag Archives: Ron Paul

A Thank You To Andrew Sullivan

For his brave retraction. I am on-line only a brief period each day, so I am late to this.

If Paul did not write these newsletters, then he has an obligation to say if he knew who did, or conduct an investigation. He has had years to do this, and hasn’t. And here’s what you’ve persuaded me of in the last few days: a person who has that kind of bigotry directly printed under his name without a clear empirical explanation of why he is innocent cannot be an honorable president of the United States. The hatred of groups of people in those letters – however gussied up by shards of legitimate arguments – is too deep and vile to be attached to a leader of the entire country. It is far too divisive. The appearance of things matters; and until Paul explains why this appears so horrible, he cannot shrug off the burden of proof.

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 , ,

More Last Notes On Ron Paul: Pat Buchanan in 1996

(This post originally stated that Paul endorsed Buchanan in 1996; Paul endorsed Buchanan in 1992. Apologies for the error.)

This post is in part inspired by the overall rise of Ron Paul in Iowa, this Dave Weigel post, “Poll: Newsletters Not Hurting Paul in Iowa”, and a Conor Friedersdorf post, “Grappling with Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters.

It should be stated emphatically: the newsletters will not hurt Paul at all in Iowa or New Hampshire. That there might appear to be a media elite that makes an issue of it only helps him. The best analogue, I think, for the Paul campaign is the campaign of the candidate who Ron Paul endorsed in 1992, Patrick Buchanan. In 1996, Buchanan carried with him a 1992 convention speech that many found repulsive, as well as a well documented history of questioning or diluting the possibility of the holocaust. This messy history did not hurt him at all in Iowa, where he placed second, or in New Hampshire, where he placed first, this with a small ten cent campaign (I think Buchanan would adore that they be called guerillas or an intifada) versus the Bob Dole colossus.

The mistake should not be made, then or now, that the base of either campaign was knuckle dragging paleos, rather than a wide spectrum of people repelled by a clump of false choices, whose passions are entirely rehearsed.

Here is John Cassidy in “Why Ron Paul Isn’t Just Another Right-Wing Nut”:

Out there in Iowa, thousands of Paul supporters, many of them young and enthused, seem determined to go ahead with this meaningless exercise in democracy. They are busy putting up posters, making phone calls, knocking on doors, and packing the candidate’s appearances in places like Sioux City and Maquoketa. In a primary in which many of the other candidates have largely forsaken one-on-one campaigning in favor of televised debates and television ad blitzes financed by super-PACs, Paul and his supporters represent a reassertion of old-fashioned shoe-leather politics. The other candidates have campaigns: Ron Paul, for good or ill, has a movement.

What sort of movement? From a brief reading of the national coverage of Paul’s campaign, you might be driven to the conclusion that his support is largely made up of racists, gun freaks, isolationists, homeschoolers, and Friedrich Hayek enthusiasts. Certainly, there are some of these. Paul’s decision, back in the early nineteen-nineties, to try and move beyond his econo-libertarian base by embracing other right-wing groups, including some linked to militias and neo-Nazis, is rightfully coming back to haunt him in the form of front page articles in the Times and elsewhere. When Newt Gingrich, as he did yesterday, describes the views of a fellow conservative as “totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American,” you know there is a problem.

But many of Paul’s supporters, particularly the younger ones, can’t be categorized as traditional right-wing extremists. What draws them to his campaign isn’t his views on welfare-dependency, Israel, or monetary policy, but his reputation as an outsider, a plain speaker, and a scourge of the political establishment.

This is Michael Lewis, writing of the Buchanan campaign in The Losers: The Road To Everyplace but the White House:

As always, Buchanan attracts a surprisingly prosperous and ordinary crowd; if you close your ears to their roiling enthusiasm you might think you are at a Dole event. But you’re not. The central fact about the Buchanan supporters is their panicky feeling of powerlessness. Some part of this feeling is no doubt the response of a psychotic mind to the complications of modern life. But another part of it is perfectly legitimate and endemic to minority life in a democracy. The people don’t rule. The majority does. It’s for just this reason—that, ultimately, they won’t win—that groups of people whose interests are not remotely similar can afford to join together into a single political movement. It’s only when such a movement comes close to actual power that it experiences the ordinary pressures to fracture. The evangelical Christian in the tweed jacket with the Buchanan sign looks first to his right, where he sees a raving lunatic, and then to his left, where he finds an unemployed worker, and asks: Do I want him to have his finger on the button?

More, equally important shared circumstances. A leading candidate, Romney now, Dole then, who is expected to win, is in a lock to win, who makes few contacts with voters, is kept outside of media scrutiny, has a pile of political opinions that aren’t his own but grabbagged from others in order to win the nomination, and a circular argument with a qualifier: the leading candidate is expected to win because of a substantial warchest and a pile of endorsements, which the candidate has received because he is expected to win, even though large numbers of Republican voters passionately do not want him to win, and are fighting against him in part because of this certainty that he will win.

The Buchanan election was at a time of greater economic prosperity than now, but he may have been received with such enthusiasm in Iowa because it was a period of relative long-term downturn in per capita personal incomes, from parity with the national average in 1975 to 90% in 1995. Incomes in Iowa went up and down since then, with a rise in the past two years I’m guessing due to the farm boom, though always still below parity with the national average – all in a period of stagnant national average incomes (U.S. Bureau Of Economic Analysis).

So, Paul may have many of the same political circumstances as the candidate he endorsed in 1992, but also a greater exhaustion over any foreign policy commitments, with greater unease over job security and economic stability. An important distinction is that Buchanan is a phenomenal speaker, while Paul is not. That this distinction is irrelevant is telling. That Paul is an unflashy, plain speaker is as crucial to his appeal as candidate as great speakership is in another. It is something that “represents” him, an anti-image of unprocessed small town straight talker, an image that may well be as false as Romney’s – who, I believe, is supposed to a be some sort of fire-breathing conservative – but which his supporters wish to continue to believe in, which the newsletters will not interrupt at all. The newsletters will be dismissed not because of any savvy on the part of the Paul campaign, but because his supporters wish to believe, and this belief, that he is a system shaking anti-establishment candidate, cannot be transferred on to anyone else.

If the analogy with Buchanan holds for Paul, then we can expect the possibility of his winning at least the same counties as his predecessor did. If geographic distribution of income across the state in 1996 was anything like it was in 2010, his winning counties will reflect the broad appeal of both campaigns, across counties of varying income levels. County map of 1996 Republican primary. Average weekly wages in Iowa (map is at the bottom) by county.

The winning counties for Buchanan, with each county’s average weekly wage in second quarter 2010:

Lyon ($526), Sioux ($580), Plymouth ($689), Woodbury ($690), Monona ($525), Osceola ($557), O’Brien ($548), Ida ($623), Shelby ($568), Buena Vista ($599), Carroll ($585), Pocahontas ($575), Calhoun ($540), Webster ($664), Hamilton ($592), Boone ($645), Hancock ($661), Howard ($586), Allamakee ($536), Dubuque ($670), Des Moines ($633), Van Buren ($586), Marion ($664), Mahaska ($611)

National average at this time was $865 (wage numbers are from Bureau of Labor Statistics). The only counties above $800 were Dallas, Polk, Linn, and Monroe – all of whom went for Dole in ’96.

Additional counties that might fall in line with Paul based on how they voted in the ’00 (2000 results) and ’08 primaries () might be Monroe, Madison, Warren, Jasper, Keokuk. Votes for Dole, but more tepid than in other places, votes for Bush but more tepid, if not a vote for Forbes, support for Huckabee.

Now: what was initially intended as a short reply to Conor Friedersdorf, who responds to the newsletters here. A fragment:

How is it — some of you might ask — that I’d even consider a vote for a candidate who, at best, negligently lent his name to a racist publication, profited from the deal, and either never bothered to find out who wrote the offending material or lied about being ignorant of it? (To be clear, if I thought he actually wrote the newsletters I certainly would not vote for him.) I’d answer that none of the policies he advocates makes me morally uncomfortable — unlike his competition. And that he has a long history of doing what he says when elected, and no more.

“How could you vote for someone who…”

Isn’t that a thorny formulation? I’m sometimes drawn to it. And yet. We’re all choosing among a deeply compromised pool of candidates, at least when the field is narrowed to folks who poll above 5 percent. Put it this way. How can you vote for someone who wages an undeclared drone war that kills scores of Pakistani children? Or someone who righteously insisted that indefinite detention is an illegitimate transgression against our civilizational values, and proceeded to support that very practice once he was elected? How can you vote for someone who has claimed to be deeply convicted about abortion on both sides of the issue, constantly misrepresents his record, and demagogues important matters of foreign policy at every opportunity? Or someone who suggests a religious minority group should be discriminated against? Or who insists that even given the benefit of hindsight, the Iraq War was a just and prudent one?

And yet many of you, Republicans and Democrats, will do just that — just as you and I have voted for a long line of past presidents who’ve deliberately pursued policies of questionable-at-best morality.

I am very much in favor of many of the policies which incite Mr. Friedersdorf’s support for Paul. I will, however, mention a modest proposal variation which fits his defense as well.

Obama supporter: Jack the Ripper? Is the GOP actually running you for president?

Jack the Ripper: Why, yes. And who are you to criticize? The many I have killed are only a fraction of those killed by the drones of your president. The suffering I’ve caused is but a thimbleful against the pain caused by your jails.

This is hyperbole, but even in this extreme case, it’s a working defense. Beyond this, it is a defense that implies, I think, a certain arrogance. That a candidate’s policies are so good, never mind their possibility of passage, that it exorcises any past sin. A counterpart on the other side of the aisle would be a democratic candidate who expected to be forgiven his klansman past because his promised programs of universal healthcare and gun control are so beneficial. Both varieties, I think, are a kind of condescending paternalism. Though our fellow men are asked to be accountable for their sins, some should be held less accountable than others because of the future benevolence they may demonstrate once they assume the powers of the state.

I will also note that if Paul is expected to be consistent with his past thoughts in any future policies as president, he will no doubt end all financial and diplomatic backing for the world court, as well as any financial backing for AIDS and other disease therapies internationally, AIDS research, as well as various subsidies for food, medicine, and heat back home – all of which could be expected to add a few thousand bodies to the charnel house. May we at least include such losses in the moral calculus, along with the lives saved from the end of drone wars?

A last note among many last notes: let us at least be rigorous enough to distinguish between intentional harm and unintentional, unwanted harm, incidental to the objective. The goals of the war in Afghanistan may, should, be questioned. The means to achieve that goal may, should, be questioned. I do not think, however, a claim can be made that the express intent, integral and necessary to the policy, was to kill children. If the goals could have been achieved without ever having such deaths, if these goals could indeed even have been achieved, the policymakers would have been grateful. I will contrast that with intent of the Paul newsletters, where the express intent, integral and necessary to the writer and the reader, are stories of jewish conspiracy, how those with AIDS those be exiled and ostracized, how to kill black men and get away with it, solely for the purpose of entertainment, ethnic solidarity, and above all, profit.

We may have another absurd modest proposal out of this contrast. There is a hostage situation in a city. A risky rescue is proposed and the mayor gives his sayso. Many, including children, are killed when things go wrong. In another part of the city, a man beats and robs a woman solely for the pleasure of humiliating her and the possession of a few more dollars. If we do not distinguish between intended and unintended harm, as Mr. Friedersdorf does not, it seems the robber should be preferred for mayor, as he has the blood of a simple mugging on his hands, while the current leader is culpable for the deaths of many.

This post has no formal closing, which is suitable, since with what may well take place in Iowa and New Hampshire it will be one of many last notes on this subject.

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 ,

The Ron Paul Newsletters / Ron Paul Paper Trail – Ron Paul Survival Report May 1995

(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

SURVIVAL REPORT

1995 by Ron Paul & Associates, Inc.

May 15, 1995 Volume XI, Number 5

Join Me in the Battle For America

May I share some important news with you, that few outside my family now know? Plans are being laid for my return to the U.S. Congress. Your help is essential, and in the days ahead, nothing will come before you, and our shared mission of freedom and prosperity.

When I was first elected to Congress in 1976, I ran to expose and try to solve the serious banking and currency problems that I saw ahead. For four terms in the House of Representatives and on the Banking Committee, I battled the Fed, the IRS, the BATF, and every other tyrannical agency of the central government. I championed sound money, the Constitution, small government, an end to debt, the free market, and an America First foreign policy. Boy, was I unpopular in some circles!

The ex-Rockefeller banker Paul Volcker, then head of the Federal Reserve, considered me his prime opponent. The Trilateralist Alan Greenspan will not be happy that I will take him on.

I think I did some good in educating the American people, and my fellow Congressmen, on just how far we’ve moved from the founding principles of America, principles that have just as much validity today as they did in 1776. As to my accomplishments in normal legislative terms, they included the U.S. Gold Commission, the minting of American Gold Eagles, and the exposure of the Monetary Control Act and various “crime” bills that only strengthened the criminals in Washington.

But since I refused to vote for pork-barrel spending in my own district, let alone anyone else’s, and since I took my oath before God to uphold the Constitution as a religious duty, I could not play the “you-scratch-my-back, I’ll scratch-yours” games so common to Congress. That is the path to sellout, and I did not go to the Congress to betray the great ideas you and I are dedicated to.

So, instead of the usual “achievement” of a Congressman – a new federal palace built in his district or a handout for this special interest or that – I was able to lead a national movement for sound money and sound government in the Jeffersonian tradition.

This led a number of patriotic Americans who worked for everything from the Fed to the Mint to the tax police to send me information on the various schemes and crimes our rulers planned to perpetrate on the American people. I checked them out, analyzed them, and exposed them. That prevented, at least for a time, such horrors as the New Money, and that was also the genesis of this newsletter.

Today, Americans are much more aware of just how dangerous the government is, and much angrier about it, then they were in 1976, and they are less and less satisfied with mere rhetoric from our political leaders. How sweet it is.

Yet the depreciation, regulations, taxes, spending, and deficits continue to balloon, as our liberties are circumscribed. The Leviathan state and its special interests have not learned their lesson, despite the November 1994 elections, so I intend to teach them by rallying the forces all across America to fight for our ideas in Washington.

Even though I left Congress undefeated in 1984, I have continued to fight for our property and our freedom through the Ron Paul Survival Report and the National Endowment for Liberty. That will not change. My commitment to you will only strengthen as I fight the internationalists, the big bankers, the spenders, the inflators, and the liars who populate the city named in honor of George Washington, but which is dedicated to destroying everything he and the other Founding Fathers gave their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for.

Now that my five children are grown and educated, I’ve listened to the many supporters who’ve urged me to return to office. I can now give up my medical practice, and dedicate every fiber of my being to saving our country. So much must be done before the financial and monetary crisis that you and I know is coming hits, so that the statists cannot use it to destroy what’s left of our liberty. Rather, the crisis must see a new birth of freedom. And with your help, I am convinced we can do it.

I live and vote in Texas Congressional District 14 – a large area that runs from my home in Surfside to north of Corpus Christi and east of Austin (It does not include the liberals of Austin.) The two largest cities are San Marcos and Victoria.

This is a rural district of hardworking, decent Americans, and therefore quite conservative. National and state-level Republicans win the 14th with ease, and yet a Democrat still holds the Congressional seat. But he is tainted with legal and ethical problems, a statist voting record, and poor communications skills. He can be beaten.

In 1988, I ran an educational campaign for President and did some good. But my wonderful wife Carol now tells me that it’s time to win.

We live in exciting times, when revolutionary change for freedom is possible, yet danger lurks around every corner. Our privacy is gone, our security is gone, illegal searches are now commonplace and religious freedom is challenged daily. Janet Reno and Bill Clinton are even establishing a 2,500-member federal police army to oppress any area of the country that gives the raspberry to D.C.

Even the new Congress, in the name of law and order, trampled the Fourth Amendment by permitting warrantless invasions of our homes and businesses. Yet lip service is given to the Tenth Amendment by a man like Bob Dole. The people are ready for the freedom revolution our country so desperately needs. But there are many wolves in sheep’s clothing who deceive the people. We need honest leadership for the crisis ahead.

Welfarism is coming to an end, thanks to the impending American bankruptcy, and we need someone to tell us, in a clear and consistent voice, that the only alternative worth considering is liberty. No more freeloading!

We must also battle the Establishment forces that would use the coming chaos to establish a fascist state and a one-world government. We are Americans first, last, and always. We should get out of the corrupt UN, the World Bank, the IMF, Nafta, and the World Trade Organization. And that’s just the beginning.

So much hangs in the balance. Join with me to stand up for liberty, hard money, the Constitution, and the American people against the foreignists, statists, and corruptionists who have betrayed our republic.

While all the political consultants say that a Republican can win in the 14th, a successful race by a maverick will need the support of Americans all across our country who are dedicated to freedom. There is no other way to beat the politics-as-usual vote-traders in the Republican primary.

More Bailouts Ahead?

In the Mexican bailout, the White House, the Congress, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and many big banks and brokerage houses were implicated in the biggest financial scam of the century. It was very messy and very open. The American people were in shock and ready to revolt, but they lacked a leader to organize them. All their leaders were on the other side.

It appears the bad guys will get away with it this time. But this was far from the last such bailout. The Establishment is now asking: what happens next time? Will we get away with it again? Will the political situation allow it? Will the American people explode in revolt? Apparently, many within big government and big business have decided that, next time, they will not take the risk.

Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA) chairs the House Banking Committee, and he has been chosen as the Congressional leader will make the next bailout smooth. So he wants to create a world-wide lender of last resort.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal (April 10, 1995), Leach calls for “an alternative way to stabilize illiquid nation-states.” “In domestic commerce,” he says, “such an approach exists in the reorganization provision of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.” He wants a Chapter 11 for the global financial system!

Governments are naturally financially irresponsible. They have few if any incentives to keep debt low and money sound. But give them the opportunity to go bankrupt whenever they want, and a dangerous moral hazard appears. Why not stay bankrupt most of the time, borrowing until the bust comes and rely on someone else to pay the bills?

Yes, governments will love this idea, and many in the third

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

Tagged ,

The Ron Paul Newsletters / Ron Paul Paper Trail – Ron Paul Survival Report May 1996

(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)

added tax on goods along with a possible tax increase on capital gains as a way to reduce labor costs.

How can labor costs be reduced by raising taxes? They can’t. But the opinion that taxes increase labor costs and lead to unemployment is not let into the public debate. Once nations talk about unifying, whether it’s the European Union, a North American free trade zone or a worldwide trade organization, the first priority becomes taxing everyone to provide for centralized socialism.

When we look at the EC – a messy and wasteful centralizing bureaucracy that hasn’t helped anyone but the people who work for it and the socialist academics who defend it – we can see the future of North America under the Nafta agreement. That is why I continue to believe that a full-scale pullout of Nafta is essential. It’s the only way to prevent further damage, and nothing less will do.

Why He Traveled

Boy, how we were treated to government disinformation when Ron Brown died. If we listened to the establishment media you expected Mr. Brown to descend on a cloud to reveal his godly status before taking his seat on the right hand of the Father. Of course all of this hysterical praise was nonsense.

We’re always sorry when someone dies, and his family deserves our condolences. But let’s ask why this trip was being taken in the first place, and why 35 big businessmen just so happened to be on the plane with him.

Because of the crash, Brown escaped indictment for shady business dealings and now may achieve martyrdom. He was not on a peace mission pursuing his patriotic duty to bring prosperity to the Balkans.

Listen to the Houston Chronicle on the matter: “Commerce Secretary Ron Brown traveled the world leading troops of U.S. executives out to conquer foreign markets…Brown’s persistent advocacy of American business interests over the past few years quieted the long-standing complaints of U.S. executives.”

What business does the U.S. government and the U.S. military have in promoting corporate and banking interests in a war zone? This is done with taxpayer’s money and military aircraft without a whimper from the media. But both political parties use the government to promote international corporations, and that is the reason there is no criticism.

This recent accident is the first time that business interests got caught redhanded traipsing around the world in military aircraft. It makes it look like our military and the UN’s and NATO’s are merely serving the interests of the corporations, as the executives march to line up the profitable business ventures made possible by war and foreign aid.

The World Bank has revealed that it is planning on sending $5.1 billion to aid Bosnia over the next three years, at the expense of the American taxpayer. Businessmen obviously are very interested in getting in on the contracts. THis is nothing more than international redistribution of wealth.

The odds are slim that the Bosnian people, who are now being forced out of their homes a boundaries fluctuate, will benefit. The local politicians as well as the international corporations will be the beneficiaries.

Immediately after our troops arrived in Bosnia, a $1.2 billion contract with Brown & Root provided a strong incentive to the internationalists to continue this policy at the expense of the contracts for the Vietnam War, and for Haiti and Somalia as well. Behold the corporate-internationalist-militarist state in action.

Up and Up

There’s a certain political party (I bet you can guess which one) that does very well by the contributions it gets from military contractors. In last year’s military budget, the Republicans tacked on $7 billion more in expenditures. This year they’re planning to add $13 billion to President Clinton’s 1997 defense budget request.

Some conservatives believe that if anyone votes against spending in the military budget, he is weak on defense. Quite to the contrary, excessive spending in the defense budget only enhances the Military Industrial Complex and encourages activity such as the involvement in Bosnia. Tax dollars are the foundation of the New World Order, the international equivalent of the domestic welfare state.

I’m convinced that less expenditures and a wiser policy will enhance our national defense, not diminish it. Certainly we cannot afford another $13 billion in military spending under today’s conditions. It also gives us credibility if we’re willing to cut some of the wasteful military spending, to then go after welfare spending.

Funny Money

The new $100 bill even looks like a counterfeit. Indeed, the general population in the United States has not received the new $100 bill well. There have been reports of people refusing to accept the new bill, or refusing the old bill because of the new bill.

So far the issuance of this new money has not caused any large disturbances in the international exchange markets, but it may still be too early to tell how the new $100 bill will be

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

Tagged ,

The Ron Paul Newsletters / Ron Paul Paper Trail – Ron Paul Survival Report September 1995

(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 other end happens to be a federal agent. He thinks you may be a “money launderer,” and begins monitoring your correspondence. Recall that laundering is a very vague charge that can be pinned on innocent people just for using their own cash.

Indeed, the New York Times says this kiddie porn case has inspired the feds “to apply the same surveillance techniques to fight many other computer-related crimes, from consumer securities fraud to money laundering.” If you use these services, my advice is to be careful about things you broadcast over the world. You might be whispering in Janet Reno’s ear.

Black Helicopters?

Are foreign troops being stationed on American soil? In a manner of speaking. There may not be any black helicopters flying around representing the U.N., but foreign troops have been drilling in various states for more than a year, and many people are rightly up in arms about it.

Even Ted Koppel reported on foreign troops at Fort Polk in Louisiana. This is clearly not run-of-the-mill “reporting.” Koppel’s program dealt in depth with the May Nato and Russian satellite countries training for joint police and “peace keeping” efforts – supposedly in the Middle East or the old Soviet Union.

In many ways, it confirmed the “rumors” that have circulated for years. Koppel even allowed an objection by one of our U.S. soldiers, who expressed his reservations on being a soldier for world government, in contrast to what he believed he signed up for when he joined the Army.

He was answered by none other than the internationalist Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili who explained the need for a “changing” role for the U.S. military in today’s world.

Why was this program aired? Too many people already knew of these activities. The rumor mill had to be neutralized. It could also mean that the establishment thinks it’s time to further indoctrinate the American people in internationalism.

For a similar reason, George Bush proclaimed that we must work for a “New World Order.” He adamantly defended his authority to send 500,000 U.S. troops to the Persian Gulf as coming from the United Nations and not from the U.S. Congress.

The intended purpose of the program was to assure the public that this sort of unconstitutional activitiy is “vital for peace” and not an attempt – as it clearly is – to undermine national sovereignty. The Washington Post followed up by ridiculing any criticism of the operation as coming from paranoid militias. The paper said: “Some may have heard rumors that Fort Polk is under U.N. Command or part of some One World Order plot. It’s not true!”

O.K. I guess we should now forget about the whole issue.

Hear the testimony of U.S. Army medic Michael New, stationed in Germany. He is about to sent to Macedonia to serve in the U.N. Forces. He is objecting to wearing the U.N. beret and insignias, correctly arguing that he has no allegiance nor obligation to serve under the U.N. Command.

Michael is only 22, but he’s wise: “It symbolizes to me a shift of allegiance from the U.S., for whom I swore an oath, to the U.N. I swore an oath to the United States Constitution and I believe there is a fundamental difference in the U.N. Charter.” The Washington Times reports that after he complained to his commander, he concluded: “No one can explain to me why I am supposed to wear somebody else’s uniform. Basically I have questions that no one is willing to answer.”

If this patriotic young American refuses to wear the U.N. uniform, he will be court marshaled. Vigilance to fight for American sovereignty is needed as never before.

No Trespassing

Tim Nettleton has been sheriff of Owyhee County in Idaho for 24 years. On May 18th this year, he declared his county off limits to the federal government. He notified the bureaucrats with the Bureau of Land Management in Boise that he would no longer give them permission to act as armed officers. If they attempt to impound cattle, evacuate mining sites, or perform any other police action, he would arrest them.

The media have raked Nettleton over the coals for this announcement, but he refuses to bend. “For 20 years I cooperated” with the feds, he says. “I deputized them. Then I looked them in the eye and said, ‘What authority do you have to act as peace officers in the state of Idaho?[']” His argument is simple. The Constitution reserves police power to the states. If the federal government attempts to grab that power, it is acting illegally.

Nettleton says that after serious study he has concluded, as many American citizens have, that federal agents simply do not have jurisdiction. Someday such a challenge will end up precipitating violence or a successful battle in the courts. Let’s hope and pray for the latter.

Phony Train Wreck

The fiscal year ends soon, and any federal shutdown will be partial and short-lived. The possibility of floating more debt is irresistible to the politicians in charge of our national finance. A continuing resolution will surely be passed when needed.

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

Tagged ,
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 82 other followers