The Constitutional hypocrisy of Ron Paul

Ron Paul: Ignore the Constitution if it suits your purpose

Republican Congressman Ron Paul‘s supporters often cite his belief and knowledge of the U.S. Constitution as reasons for their cult-like support of him and his son, freshman Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

So what’s the great Constitutional scholar up to now? Advocating nullification of parts of the Constitution by states that disagree with federal laws.

This regresses the nation back by nearly a half-century to the days of the Southern Manifesto, a racist document designed to allow states to avoid integration and civil rights.  Nullification has also been used to fight slavery but I find it odd that a strict Constitutional advocate would push for support of only those parts of the document that fit with his philosophies.

Those who support nullification point to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution to support their claim that states have the right to “nullify” laws.  Constitutional law professors say otherwise.

Edward Lazarus, a lawyer, teacher of Constitutional law and columnist for FindLaw, writes:

At Best, Invoking Nullifcation Is Simply Grandstanding; At Worst, It Is a Troubling Sign of Turmoil and Discontent in the Face of a Frightening Recession

It is hard to know what to make of the fact that a bunch of opportunistic politicians are now holding out a tarnished artifact of constitutional history as a serious interpretation of the Constitution and of our national structure. Perhaps this can be written off as mere grandstanding – symbolic gestures by politicians who are hoping to tap into a potential backlash against the inevitable growth of the federal government as it comes to grips with our economic crisis.

But nullification is a deeply pernicious idea. It strikes at the core of the constitutional bargain that was struck after the Revolution when the Articles of Confederation failed – the working principle that we are all in this together and that the purpose of the federal government, a government in which every state is represented, is to calibrate the shared sacrifices that all of us will have to bear to preserve the country’s economic vitality and help it prosper. In place of this unifying idea, nullification substitutes the easy way out – by making the claim that we must all be allowed to judge our own contribution and take our own path, no matter how much our cross-purposes and divergent interests might undermine the common good.

Ron Paul, who is not a Constitutional expert, sees things differently.

This is the same Ron Paul whose newsletters once published racist rants under his name — although he claims now he didn’t write or approve the columns that ran with his by-line — and whose freshman Senator son said during last year’s campaign that businesses that serve the public — like restaurants — should be able to ignore the law and refuse to serve minorities.

In a speech to a homeschooling rally, Paul told the faithful that “in principal, nullification is proper and moral and constitutional.”

Added Paul:

The chances of us getting things changed around soon through the legislative process is not all the good. And that is why I am a strong endorser of the nullification movement, that states like this should just nullify these laws. And in principle, nullification is proper and moral and constitutional, which I believe it is, there is no reason in the world why this country can’t look at the process of, say, not only should we not belong to the United Nations, the United Nations comes down hard on us, telling us what we should do to our families and family values, education and medical care and gun rights and environmentalism. Let’s nullify what the UN tries to tell us to do as well.

In other words, if regressives like Paul can’t get their way in Congress — and he seldom does — just ignore parts of constitution and returns to the days of the Old South when Alabama and other states thought slavery and repression was still legal in this nation.

This is typical for Paul, who has never strayed far philosophies of the past. And the comments of his son suggest Rand learned well from his dad’s out-of-sync philosophies.

If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,” said a column which appeared under Paul’s name in 1992.

Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” said another column published under his name that same year.

This is why Ron Paul remains on the fringe with the vast majority of Americans. Despite lofty visions of his small — but vocal — army of supporters, he received just one-half of one percent of the vote as the Libertarian candidate for President in 1988 and trailed far behind the four remaining contenders for the GOP nomination for President when he finally gave up the ghost in 2008.

When he suspended his run for President, Paul diverted the $4.7 million raised from donation by the faithful to the Campaign for Liberty, one of Libertarian-leaning advocacy groups. This is also a familiar pattern for Paul. Ran a national Presidential campaign to raise money and then use the money for something else. While technically legal it does, in my view, raise questions about his honesty and true intentions.

Trying to find ways around the constitution is why George W. Bush left office as one of the most unpopular President in history. Paul vilifies the “establishment” politicians of other parties, but his advocacy of the nullification movement suggests he is just as hypocritical as the rest.

(Updated on April 1, 2011 to add some information and edit some existing content.)

Enhanced by Zemanta

98 Responses to "The Constitutional hypocrisy of Ron Paul"

  1. griff  March 31, 2011 at 7:55 am

    Nullification of the Constitution? That’s a pretty simple-minded and erroneous analysis of nullification. It has nothing to do with nullifying the Constitution, but nullifying federal laws that infringe on the rights of the individual states.

    I guess the twenty-six or so states already moving to nullify Obamacare are rabid fringe lunatics? Gotcha.

    The individual states have not only the right, but the duty, to reign in an out of control federal government. Nullification is one such avenue. It has nothing to do with going back to slavery or the 18th century. That’s ridiculous.

    I always hear that politics is local. The federal government has run amok, afoul of its constitutionally enumerated powers. Nullification is a check on an over-reaching federal government.

    To suggest that it means nullifying the Constitution is flat out wrong.

  2. Mike  March 31, 2011 at 9:39 am

    Well. At least you still get your check for trying to do a good hit-piece. Your employer is very scared of a Ron Paul presidency. Maybe next time you can try David Ickye’s “he’s a reptile”.

  3. Tim  March 31, 2011 at 9:45 am

    Perhaps this article takes the ‘racist’ label a bit too far: that’s yet to be seen really as I haven’t followed the links to read the past articles myself. I can speak from growing up in MS in the 50’s and 60’s, plus the comments I read regarding ‘State’s Rights’ in the discussion boards to which I am a member, all conservative. The ‘State’s Rights’ argument indeed harkens to an earlier age when states pushed this agenda to impose separatist ideals for the purpose of dehumanizing minorities.

    As for Tea Party member knowledge and research into the issues: what I often find in the issue knowledge and research posted by Tea Partiers with whom I often debate is a completely biased assessment of issues fostered by information they’ve dug up or been lead to by politically biased sources. Most often the perspective is strictly rural without any consideration for the urban dwellers of the nation who in turn actually pay most of those taxes the Tea Party complains about.

  4. Justin Moe  March 31, 2011 at 11:25 am

    This writer should be taken out back and beaten with a stick. I’ve never heard such B.S. in my life. Ron Paul racist, please. If he was racist then why does he want to bring our troops home and is anti-war?

  5. Dawn Marie Clark  March 31, 2011 at 11:41 am

    Written with complete ignorance.

    You can attempt to slam The Good Doctor Ron Paul but you will not succeed.

  6. Tom Woods  March 31, 2011 at 11:46 am

    Hilariously, the author doesn’t know nullification was used against slavery, not in support of it. That itself means he is not even entitled to an opinion.

    His comments on nullification, a subject he knows zero about apart from what his sixth-grade teacher told him, are in fact an attack on Thomas Jefferson.

    Every argument here, plus a bunch I as a sporting chap have added to help out his case, are demolished here: http://www.tomwoods.com/nullification-answering-the-objections/

    I made this video to parody leftist journalists and their constant talk of “slavery” and “racism” whenever the states are mentioned. It also applies to neocons, evidently: http://www.InterviewWithAZombie.com

  7. Janet Holmes  March 31, 2011 at 11:54 am

    I, too, am grateful to find out so quickly that this site is a waste of my time. There is so much good information out there on the true state of affairs in this country, on how nullification can be used to protect our rights, how the EPA, FDA, CDC et al have been corrupted by international banks and corporations, on how Ron Paul has consistently fought for transparency, liberty, and our constitution, etc., that it is hard to keep up. I may not get the 3 minutes back that it took me to read Mr. Thompson’s piece of ludicrous writing but at least I know not to visit this site again.

    (Is there no editorial review board for this site?!?)

  8. randy franks  March 31, 2011 at 11:59 am

    Dr. Paul wants to nullify unconstitutional federal color of law, NOT our U.S.A. Constitution. Dougy used the “race card” like a good liberal. It never works, but they feel that it does so they keep using it. Doug have the Immature Misology Disorder ( http://www.liberalsanonymous.info )

  9. John Jay Myers  March 31, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    Holy mackeral what a bunch of ignorant trash, just for the sake of spewing ignorant trash.
    Everyone else has covered most of the inane, I will only correct that Ron didn’t run for President (on any ticket) in 1996.

    Your lack of concern for even the most basic facts help me understand why the rest of your article should be flushed down the toilet.

    I guess someone just says “we need to dredge up some stuff on Paul” and they hired you.. have you ever written anything that was good… or even factual?

  10. Darren Collins  March 31, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    I’m sure the great non-racist Adolf Hitler, who was opposed to states rights as well would agree with you, Doug. What a racist and selfish thing it is to think that a central government should never be trusted to subdue its own power. I mean nothing bad could come of not having that check of power from the states…. Right, Doug?

  11. Rick Fisk  March 31, 2011 at 12:49 pm

    Doug Thompson has a very poor reputation and the readership of his website has been falling dramatically.

    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/capitolhillblue.com

    You can see that it has lost 23% over the past 3 months.

    Many, many major and minor media outlets have discovered that if you want to see traffic soar, run something about Ron Paul. If you REALLY want to make them soar, make sure it includes plenty of libelous accusations.

    Since this article was published traffic has jumped 10%. LOL. Doug knows the score. He’s an opportunist.

  12. Chris Cantwell  March 31, 2011 at 1:00 pm

    I think the racists are the warmongering criminals who keep sending our men off to kill brown people who pray funny.

    Nullification IS Constitutional, the whole point is to NULLIFY Unconstitutional laws. Where you maniacs get off calling it constitutional hypocrisy or racism is beyond my comprehension.

    We’re not falling for this slander, we’re taking back the republic, whether you statists like it or not!

  13. R.S. Bell  March 31, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    Do you even know the definition of racism? Using the “R” word in an attempt to discredit nullification (a legitimate state option that was used to nullify the unconstitutional fugitive slave act) discredits only your argument against it and Ron Paul.

    Try again. Although, that was probably your best and only shot to distract emotionally vulnerable leftists from higher cognitive functions in pursuit of an ever-larger bureaucratic oligarchy in Washington, D.C.

    • Ayn R. Key  March 31, 2011 at 2:53 pm

      The definition of “Racist” is “Someone who disagrees with a progressive on political issues.” It has nothing to do with race.

  14. Janet Holmes  March 31, 2011 at 1:06 pm

    I, too, am grateful to find out so quickly that this site is a waste of my time. There is so much good information out there on the true state of affairs in this country, on how nullification can be used to protect our rights, how the EPA, FDA, CDC et al have been corrupted by international banks and corporations, on how Ron Paul has consistently fought for transparency, liberty, and our constitution, etc., that it is hard to keep up. I may not get the 3 minutes back that it took me to read Mr. Thompson’s piece of ludicrous writing but at least I know not to visit this site again.

    (Is there no editorial review board for this site?!?)

  15. Rodney Grey  March 31, 2011 at 1:20 pm

    Wow, you guys have gone from ignoring Ron Paul, to slandering him. That shows me you are really worried about his appeal to the broader American public.
    The disgusting part though, is your use of the racist card to attack this man who hasn´t a racist bone in his body.
    Ron Paul is a patriot who is the only man out there who has a hope in hell of preventing the looming civil war. Is that what you are afraid of? Is that what your agenda is?

  16. Darren Collins  March 31, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    Ron Paul is waiting for your apology, Doug.

  17. Barry Hess  March 31, 2011 at 1:34 pm

    What passes for ‘journalism’ these days is amazing. First the clownish writer uses his/her (skewed) interpretation of the constitution to try to minimize Ron’s sound and rational arguments, then he/she paints him with their interpretation of “the law”. To finish up, the cognitively-challenged writer then jumps on the bandwagon of legislated ‘morality’. I think this kind of tabloid trash reeks of insecurities on the writer’s part….it makes me want to support Dr. Paul. Thanks for that…

  18. Stephanie Tejada  March 31, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    I am of Hispanic decent and have followed Ron Paul for the past 10 years. This is a total smear article which doesn’t even deserve attention. Ron Paul’s nullification is not about the constitution, its about states rights over a federal government that has gotten out of hand. He follows the founding fathers idea of a federal government that is to protect civil rights above all.
    He may not support gay marriage but he believes governments have no business regulating it. He also does not support the war on drugs!
    Get a clue Doug, learn some history then come back and write us a real article!

  19. Tom Rankin  March 31, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    “Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one’s self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.” –Michael Rivero, http://whatreallyhappened.com/

    The author is either a moral coward or statist shill.

  20. Andrew Gmoney  March 31, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    Be afraid Doug, be very afraid!

  21. Julie Spokus  March 31, 2011 at 2:32 pm

    Doug,

    Why does the link to your bio not work?

    Just wondering.

  22. Bryionak  March 31, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    Doug, been reading your site since 1997 and have appreciated your commentary, comedy, joys, and defeats over the last 14 years. You have had a number of columns that I have disagreed with but almost always make me think or laugh, and make me consider looking at somethin in a new light. This column is reminding me of the other one or two that just don’t mesh. This column is the epitome of intellectual laziness. This is barely worthy of a HuffPo forum poster. Rand Paul may not have phrased it exactly right, but constitutionaly speaking he is absolutely correct that the Fed Government has no right to tell me who I can and cant allow in my place of business. That is the role of the states and the local governments. Do the ninth and tenth amendments mean anything? If you think the fed government should determine what rights we have and any powers not specifically left to the states and people should be determined by the models of virtue on Capital Hill, then take a break from the site and start the movement for the Constitutional amendment to have them removed.

  23. 12on Paul  March 31, 2011 at 3:03 pm

    US government’s drug war polices target black people. Dr Paul is one of the only people in government that would end the drug war to protect black people.

    Nullification is not racist.

    Ron Paul 2012

  24. Wayne Herrod  March 31, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    I guess it doesn’t take intelligence or dilligence to historical accuracy to publish a blog, and I wonder what kind of mush for brain people would read it, but I suggest a quick and massive reading of historical documents starting with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution followed by the Federalist and ant-federalist papers. While you’re at it, read Madison’s and Jefferson’s Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and then, perhaps you will be sufficiently up-to-speed to read Thomas Woods’ book, Nullification with the proper background to understand that there is neither anything racist about Nullification or Dr. Paul…. of course you could just do nothing and stew in your own ignorance- your call.

  25. Kevin McCashion  March 31, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    Funny stuff, I guess Mr. Thompson would have been opposed to nullification as used in opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act. Or nullification as practiced in opposition to segregation.

  26. Robert Ford  March 31, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    This writer is just plain silly.

    • Jim Eckland  March 31, 2011 at 8:06 pm

      Robert,

      I couldn’t agree more !!

  27. Jenny  March 31, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    I am a black conservative and I am very disgusted by the slant of this piece. What I have noticed is that blacks and other minorities are dissuaded from conservative groups and ideology by collectivist propaganda perpetrated by people such as the author of this article. I am an individual and can think for myself. I have not witnessed Ron Paul or Rand Paul making one single remark or action that could be construed in any way to be racist. I do not need experts or interpreters to tell me who is a racist and who to be afraid of. I don’t need the interpreters to tell me what words or nuances are code speak for something I am supposed to be offended and threatened by. As an individual I am capable of judging other individuals by their words and actions. By the words and actions of author Doug Thompson in this article, I believe him to be the ultimate racist. How dare he think he can tell me who hates me based on his own prejudices! He thinks he has some special ability to see into the heart and mind of others, and that he will report to we incapable minorities what to think and feel about others, otherwise he would stick to reporting the actual words and deeds of those he criticizes.

    In addition, Thompson’s understanding of history and Constitutional law is deficient to say the least. How can he ignore the 10th amendment when he arbitrarily decides that support of nullification equates one to racism? Because it fits the preconceived story he wants to force together. You see people like him, and like the SPLC, have built their careers and fortunes by claiming to be the interpreters of “Racism” for we minorities that are too pitiful to make a determination ourselves. Too bad that the facts don’t fit their prescription. Too bad it is they that spread hatred, misinformation, and race baiting for personal gain.

    You see, it is very very easy for individuals to tell which other individuals are racists without the need of interpreters. Racists don’t hide their dislike for certain groups and individuals, they blatantly demonstrate it with their own words and actions just like the author of this article.

    • Eric  March 31, 2011 at 6:31 pm

      Thanks, Jenny, for telling it like it is.

  28. Darlene Lyncombe  March 31, 2011 at 4:36 pm

    Four days ago Mr. Thompson wrote about the cult-like zeal that supporters of the Tea Party and the Pauls display. All this uproar does nothing but prove his point.

    He wrote:

    Tea Party supporters defend the extremism of their movement with cult-like zeal, bombarding those who dare question their movement with invective-filled emails, threatening boycotts and waving signs that call opponents “socialists” or “communists” or “traitors.”

    The same over-zealousness can be found in supporters of fringe politicians like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.

    This is an opinion column and the write is expressing his opinion and it is an opinion that I and others share. If Dr. Paul has all this support, where were the voters in his other runs for President? One half of one percent of the vote in 1996 and dead last in the 2008 GOP primary? Dr. Paul will never be President, no matter how loud his cadre of niche voters shout.

    I also find it interesting that while some here castigate Mr. Thompson’s grammar they overlook the far more frequent spelling and grammatical errors of their fellow cultists. Especially interesting is the poster who said “your a maroon” when he should have said “you’re a moron.” The moron was the uneducated loon who write the comment.

    While I don’t always agree with Mr. Thompson, I find it refreshing that he is willing to stick his neck out and do so under his own name. Most of the posters here — especially those who do most of the name calling — don’t have the guts to use their names.

    Typical. Don’t let the kooks get you down Doug. Keep up the good work.

    • Doug Thompson  March 31, 2011 at 4:39 pm

      Don’t worry Darlene. They never have and they never will. Thanks for the comment and the courage to wade into this fray.

      • Jenny  April 1, 2011 at 12:01 am

        Yes, never take any constructive criticism. Just keep at it, even when you are wrong.

        • Jon  April 1, 2011 at 10:31 pm

          Personally, I was most amused by the detail that articles were published, under his name, that he now says, “Oh, I didn’t write (or approve) those”. Ummm…

          Mr. Thompson has written some pretty scary things, but at least he owns up to having written them.

          J.

    • woody188  March 31, 2011 at 11:21 pm

      Actually, maroon is from the Warner Bros. Looney Tunes short, “Bully for Bugs.” Bugs Bunny refers to a bull as an “ultra maroon” and some other colorful invectives pronounced incorrectly. So the author was actually calling Doug a moron and loony at the same time, hence the “what else ya got doc?” at the end of his statement. He must see himself as that rascally and clever rabbit outsmarting Doug as the slow witted Elmer or wacky Daffy. That might not be obvious if one is not familiar with pop culture from the last 60 years or one that does not have young kids that watch Looney Tunes daily as I do. :lol:

      • Phillip Churelington  April 1, 2011 at 8:04 am

        GREAT reply, Woody!

        I was going to just say “maroon” is from Bugs Bunny. Lame, compared to your response!

        You totally knocked that one out of the ball park!

  29. b mcclellan  March 31, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    It’s opening day and the bats are swingin away,
    the editors balls, the focus of the fray.
    Hope you’re wearin a cup Doug..

  30. John Johnson  March 31, 2011 at 4:58 pm

    First time/last time reading this guy.

  31. Nick Sayers  March 31, 2011 at 5:01 pm

    I live in Australia and I can see straight through this garbage as a smear. ow many false statements can you place into one article? Journalists like this should be marked and avoided.

  32. Kevin Tuma  March 31, 2011 at 5:14 pm

    Let me guess—the “blue” in “Capitol Hill Blue” refers to blue states. Is tha correct?

    Let me give you a piece of advice, Doug–instead of attempting to smear one of the only decent Congressional statesmen in the past century with “racism” hogwash, why don’t you spend more time holding Obama’s feet to the fire on war and civil liberties issues..? Maybe that way, he might reestablish some credibility, and he won’t end up as a one-termer. After all, Election Day is coming around fast.

  33. Tom  March 31, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    I wonder if any of you that are in favor of a privately owned business not letting a minority in has ever had a black friend that was denied entrance. I was in the mid south area of Georgia in the mid 1970′s and saw this first hand. My dad and I had gone into a country store and Jim followed a few minutes later and was stopped at the door. Dad looked around to see what was happening and said to me and Jim “Lets Go”! If Jim was living he would be 84 years old.
    I was around 15 at the time and have never and will never ever forget this. Jim and I went to many NASCAR races together through out NC and never had any trouble. Every time we went to Georgia though he was always scared of stopping anywhere except a truck stop.

  34. Jill Pyeatt  March 31, 2011 at 6:53 pm

    Wow, the Powers That Be must really be afraid of the Drs. Paul. Yet, the GOP continues to try to pass off Palin, Romney. Huckabee, now Trump as decent potential candidates for the Presidency. You’re kidding, right?

  35. Dixie Passion  March 31, 2011 at 7:04 pm

    Whoa practically the only one in Washington standing up to the corruption and you are writing like this shame on you.

    • Beverly Grant  March 31, 2011 at 7:29 pm

      Ron Paul standing up to corruption? What a joke. The man is as corrupt as they come. He uses his Presidential campaign to milk contributions out of the gullible to finance his other operations. He’s a crook. So is his son. And anyone who follows this madman is a co-conspirator.

      • Drew Clayton  April 1, 2011 at 11:02 am

        Hmmm. I worked in Dr Paul’s 2008 campaign and I can tell you you are correct that he did not spend every dollar he took in, and when he was fundraising he told those who were giving him money that he wouldnt spend it all. Dr Paul’s whole “presidential run” is not about winning, do you honestly think a man 10 times smarter than you believes he can win? Of course not, do you know why Dr. Paul runs if not to win???? He does so to educate the public and get his ideas out there. Therefore he doesnt waste tons of money on a campaign he cant win, he takes that money and rolls it over into events for Campaign for Liberty or for other events like Nullification Now that talk about the principles of liberty. Ron Paul is about educating the public nothing more, hes doesnt believe hes going to win, although I think if he ever could 2012 would be the year. So telling people the money they are donating will not nesessarily go to the presidential campaign but will def go towards advancing the cause of liberty makes him a crook? I have about 10 fundraising letters from him, would you like me to show you the part where he puts that on there? Probably not because then you cant smear the only NON crook in washington, and cheer on Sara Palin or Obummer while they take tax subsidies and write propaganda filled books to line their coffers….

  36. Tom Holcombe  March 31, 2011 at 7:25 pm

    Interesting study in mob psychology Doug. You question the great scam artist Ron Paul and his Kool-Aid drinking lemmings jump to his defense with one repetitious slam after another, most of them anonymous.

    Ron Paul is a joke, a perennial Presidential candidate who can’t win enough of the national vote to even become a blip on the election meter and yet these mindless followers of his keep predicting that he will one day be President, which of course he won’t.

    They don’t deal with his racist past, they don’t look at the racism inherent in his actions, they don’t deal with his membership in the John Birch Society, they just follow his misinterpretations of the Constitution and claim it is gospel.

    Keep firing away. Maybe the reason you didn’t have more support during the day is because the real Americans who work for a living don’t have time to sit at the computer and fire off hate bombs. When they get home from work you will no doubt find more supporters checking in.

  37. Vince Romano  March 31, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    Hahahahaha very good write. Made me laugh till my tummy hurt. Your insane haha

  38. Sam Rogers  March 31, 2011 at 7:34 pm

    My guess, Mr. Thompson, is that you are getting the last laugh here. You rile up the Ron Paul cultists and they spam your site with nasty comments, driving up your traffic and ad revenue on the last day of the month.

    Bet you’re laughing all the way to the bank.

    Too bad the Paul faithful are too dumb to realize they’ve been had. But if they support Ron and Rand they aren’t too bright anyway.

    Good piece. About time someone said what needed to be said about the phony Pauls and their fund-raising schemes.

    • Carl Hollis  March 31, 2011 at 8:04 pm

      You know Sam, I was thinking the same thing. Doug has a knack for poking his finger in someone’s eye and making it pay. These fools probably paid his bills for the month and left some over so I can buy more chrome for his Harley-Davidson. Game, set, match for Mr. Thompson.

  39. Loren Yates  March 31, 2011 at 7:39 pm

    Ron Paul is walking and talking political joke and his supporters are fools who waste their money and efforts on a candidate who never will be President. You are correct, Doug, when you label him a fringe candidate but you should have called his supporters what they are: the lunatic fringe.

  40. Donald Jackson  March 31, 2011 at 7:43 pm

    There you go again Doug, pissing in Ron Paul’s pool. No biggie. It just adds to the shit that’s already there from his mindless followers.

  41. Shelby Nordlinger  March 31, 2011 at 7:48 pm

    When I first read the piece this morning I knew I would come home from work to find a mess of angry comments from the Ron Paulites. That’s their style. They bombard anyone who doesn’t buy into the myth of Ron Paul. They use the same technique to skew online polls but the only poll that matters is the one on election day and, so far, Dr. Paul has lost every bid to become President. He hasn’t even come close. Extremists like him never do.

    • John Dees  March 31, 2011 at 7:57 pm

      Amen Shelby. Flooding web sites is no proof of support. The only barometer is winning. Ron Paul is a loser and so are those who follow him blindly into the not-so-good night. All they can do is scream and shout but they can’t deliver a winner in the election.

  42. Brian D'Amico  March 31, 2011 at 8:01 pm

    If you call Ron Paul a Constitutional hypocrite, you should also call Thomas Jefferson one as well. He also supported the right of the people and the States to nullify federal law. (see Principles of ’98) The author of this article must not know that the original states were fearful of a federal government which is why the states gave the federal government limited powers. In addition to limited powers they also included the 10th amendment stating clearly that if a power wasn’t given to the federal government, it belongs to the states or the people.

    The states also needed some form of recourse if the federal government went beyond its unconstitutional powers. Thomas Jefferson recognized there were several choices for the states and he felt nullification was the best course of action. Remember, the Constitution is similar to a contract. It is a contract between the federal government and the states. You can’t have a contract where only one side can interpret the terms.

    It is ridiculous for the author to say someone who favors nullification is also a racist. If you favor nullification, you favor individual and states’ rights. Favoring nullification also means you believe strongly in the Constitution.

    • Bill Nunzio  March 31, 2011 at 8:13 pm

      One man’s falsehoods is another’s truth. You have your opinions on nullification and Thompson has his. You two differ in your opinions, that’s all. Believing in something does not necessarily make it true any more than it makes a differing opinion false. There are a lot of theories and beliefs about nullification and what drives it but the sad truth is that the Southern Manifesto was based on racism and little more. States’ rights has too often been used as a cover for racism. I believe Dr. Paul is racist. His past newsletters raise far too many questions in his mind and I come down on Thompson’s side on this one.

      I seem to remember Thompson once quoting from “The Kid Stays in the Picture,” the autobiography of producer Robert Evans. His prologue read: “This story has three sides: My side, their side and the truth…and no one is lying.” Truth today is based more on perception and passion than hard, cold facts but at least you and I can have a debate on our differing perceptions of what may or may not be true. I agree with Thompson. You do not. That is the basis of good political debate.

      • b mcclellan  March 31, 2011 at 11:06 pm

        That would be positive negative in agreement of it’s recognition into the echos of sad refrains of
        walk a mile in my shoes
        brother can you spare some soul ?

  43. b mcclellan  March 31, 2011 at 8:19 pm

    Questioning if there exists true interpretation across the board of applied nullification seems more the authors bent.
    Interpreters we’ve got,
    real dot connectors are sorely in demand.. Llamraf

  44. Charlie Peters  March 31, 2011 at 8:34 pm

    Audit the federal reserve, support HR 459 Paul

    • Lawrence Adams  March 31, 2011 at 8:40 pm

      I have a better idea. Let’s audit the suspicious transfer of $4.7 million from the Ron Paul Presidential campaign fund to the Campaign for Liberty. That money came from Americans who thought they were contributing to a Presidential campaign but their money went to start another privately-controlled advocacy group for Dr. Paul. Integrity, Congressman Paul, starts at home.

    • b mcclellan  March 31, 2011 at 9:01 pm

      Who, will have vetted,
      then audited, said auditors of this plan ?
      The pole has an endless supply of grease,
      but keep climbing,
      feet on the ground scares them most.

  45. bobmccune  March 31, 2011 at 8:48 pm

    Hey guys, Google the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution and read it. It says, in effect, if the Constitution hasn’t granted a power to the Federal government then that power is given to the States or to the people. Broken down even more, if we forgot to mention a power the Federal government doesn’t have, then the Federal government can’t do that either!

  46. William C. Watkins  March 31, 2011 at 9:09 pm

    Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the adults come home from work and start weighing in on Doug’s side and Ron Paul’s Children of the Corn vanish into the night? Probably out trying to score.

    • b mcclellan  March 31, 2011 at 9:49 pm

      There be deathly silence surrounding I agree,
      I’m still here, banter away with me.

  47. Almandine  March 31, 2011 at 10:54 pm

    What manner of reply could add? Doug has his reasons, none of which could likely satisfy me, as his long-lived love of liberty has apparently fallen to a greater “cause”.

    How about Saturday night radio theater…

    “Attention stargazers, uninformed sources have revealed to this charlatan that Doug Thompson of CHB has been abducted by alien political craft just north of Lost Wages, NV, and is being held high above Area 51 attached to a neurotelepathic transmitter by which intermittent contact with CHB ghost writers is being laboriously maintained. Transplant of state-of-the-art ethical metamodules continues apace, perfunctorially guided by highly latest batch of illusion the neuropsychiatric crew of the 4th backwoods can brew. Listen next Saturday at nine, when your hubristic reporter will bring you “live” updates from the stratosphere”.

    Feel better?

    • b mcclellan  March 31, 2011 at 11:57 pm

      If I can get hold of my cosmic vette from Earnhardt Sr,
      I’d like trade ya a ride for a look see at them there neuropsyciatric metamodules.

      Have you ever seen so many Ants ?

      • Almandine  April 1, 2011 at 8:23 am

        As some said… good for the old bottom line.

  48. woody188  March 31, 2011 at 11:43 pm

    Let’s travel further down the rabbit hole. Join me, if you dare.

    Elections don’t work. We are given a choice between corporate approved candidates, and then they cheat at counting the votes, or they don’t have enough machines available causing impossibly long lines which cause working people to leave in disgust. Don’t tell me it does not happen, I’ve seen it with my own two eyes.

    What that means is Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are both integral parts of the current power system. They are allowed to keep their seats as the fringe leaders so that they can continue to lead passionate and dedicated supporters down the path to defeat every year.

    Think about it. No one the establishment doesn’t want elected gets elected. Our far right (Paul) and far left (Kucinich) pied pipers help ensure that every year as they lead people into a dead end and quit the race to save their Congressional seat. Perhaps their reward is that Congressional seat. It worked for Arlen Specter when he came up with the “magic bullet” theory as part of the Warren Commission.

    So if our fringe heroes are also part of the system, that means there is no freedom. There are no real elections. We are slaves to a plutocratic military dictatorship and most don’t even realize it through the magic of electronic voting, massive propaganda apparatuses and mind control. Bazinga!

    I now return you to your regular Hegelian Dialectic and false duopoly. Please pay no attention to the men behind the curtain with all the money and continue fighting amongst yourselves.

    • b mcclellan  April 1, 2011 at 12:13 am

      Face to face young man, stark raving lunacy abounds.
      There is no hiding place for the callow without the strength of a sparrow in numbers thereof.
      Where is that confounded flock ?

      • woody188  April 1, 2011 at 12:22 am

        Still love your writing. I gave up on flocks a long time ago. Now I only offer a point of view not heard in many places. Try looking into that place where you dare not look. You’ll find me there, staring back at you! :smile:

        • griff  April 1, 2011 at 7:03 am

          I would have to say I’m disappointed in some of the idiocy from both camps. Even though most of the arguments for Paul are valid and true, the sheer volume merely serves to prove Doug’s point, as wrong as it may be.

          But the other side just offered more of the same. No real counter to the reality of the nullification argument, just the same uninformed venom this column personifies.

          I guess reality doesn’t sit too well with some folks. They seem to hate it.

          • Doug Thompson  April 1, 2011 at 7:52 am

            Good point griff. Debate gets lost when it turns into a mob scene. I ran a spam filter check on the comments this morning and found that many came from the same IP address and contained phony email addresses. Those comments (both pro and con) were deleted.

            If we could all learn to agree to disagree we might actually get something accomplished in this country. It may be too late for that and, if so, that’s the greatest tragedy of all.

            • logtroll  April 1, 2011 at 8:52 am

              I’m no expert, but the sheer quantity of comments from non-”regulars” to this site indicates some kind of organized show of force that is suspicious in its legitimacy. It does not surprise me that many of the posts originate from the same source.

              Is that a testiment to the integrity of the Ron Paul congregation? Or just an over zealous wingnut? (Methinks I repeat myself…)

  49. b mcclellan  April 1, 2011 at 1:18 am

    Fukashima Dai-ichi resonates a distant number two,
    don’t look now bunch a dang racers surround you.
    The grass glowing prospect of simultaneous zirconium breach
    melts news and feeds practitioners of this failed art
    withholding the obvious as it were.
    Courage to them, and good luck
    whilst death reflects in all it’s finality humanitarian disregard
    the hat will become bereft of rabbits.

  50. Sandune  April 1, 2011 at 11:09 am

    Doug, you still have a number of followers here who DO read, and DO analyze your words.

    Why do we stick around through this mass of opinions that offer nothing to the situation? Most of us old timers here were shocked at the reaction from the voters who outwardly did not vote for Obama due to the color of his skin. It has been my greatest disappointment as an American voter. I caught the message from the RNC back in 1988 and never again voted for a Republican. Agenda is everything to me and many others. The only Republican who made any sense was Congressman Ron Paul from Texas.

    With the negative reaction to President Obama, I wanted very much to see a movement behind Paul but there was no firm agenda. I realize Dr. Paul was raised as a Catholic and would never back equal opportunity for abortion or the gay community. But I waited……. I received a lot of information from a group who were introducing his son Rand for a Senate seat. I waited…..

    What gathered around this new concept of fiscal responsibility were people who were so involved in promoting religion over any other method of government that I realized the insanity of the tea party would make or break the Paul form of government.

    I simply sit back and read my emails and CHB comments. The Paul form of government is no more valid than what Ross Perot offered in 1992. Both have much to offer our government but first we are going to have to determine what it is we want. I woke up to the fact that many Americans do feel superior to their black brothers and sisters. I was told nearly violently that homosexuals are not equals in America because they do not breed. It was a lesson I had as massive reaction to and probably should have stopped my involvement in my own organizations.

    I grew up in a family where I could not associate with African Americans, Jews or anyone with a foreign accent. I have spent over 70 years fighting this bigotry but still did not realize how deep-seated it still is.

    I’ve been known to poke a stick in the eyes of people who disagree with my basic agenda of equality and can start one hell of a fight here at CHB. What comes back at me is my advanced age, my use of pain pills since my last surgeries and not one damn word about my opinions. My message has always been that we all have a different political point of view and that not all of us are Christians.

    I don’t need to agree with Doug Thompson and often don’t. I learned my politics from my own desk and reading books, papers and essays on the various interpretations of American freedoms. Doug learned from hands-on experience and no doubt saw the seedier side of our government.

    I hope that Doug’s allowing the replies from his commentary will shake up some members of CHB. Is there one brain here who has the answer to what ails our government? One man above, listed God as the top of his list which assumes that all real Americans are Christians. Sorry that is not the case. All real Americans are……….fill in the space.

    My question to all posters and ranters is “How much government do any of you want?” Do we need to be told what not to do, not to drink, not to smoke and how much of our neighbor’s wealth should we take via the government?

    No, I am not insane but have been involved in the construction of many new laws imposed by many who cannot survive without the safety net of government. If we are not going to increase our skills through education then we will have to finance a new level of non-workers. If we never take the time to raise healthy children, then we will need something like Obamacare. If we never learn to compromise in our daily lives, we will need a level of government to force us to behave. There is not a time in our history where a good example of needing a big brother government to keep the peace on our planet was not suggested..

    I read the above replies and was horrified at the anger of the words. Not a single suggestion for correction which is not necessarily a CHB problem. It is an American problem.

    Even I will concede if the American people demand a Christian Constitution. It will change American culture to something so vile and evil that I will never get involved in a political debate again. Anyone who really wants this Evangelical movement will have to be prepared to kill the rest of us off. That is the history of the occult form of government.

    The Christian Universities are working on a method to determine whether a fetus carries the homosexual gene. Once that is nipped out of existence, then new methods of developing a fetus that cannot be destroyed. The war on drugs will be part of a anti-terrorism government program and the future of a Christian American will be set in stone. We can stop working on the damage done by earthquakes and simply spend more time praying to the puppet master who holds the strings.

    If the Paul family manages to get control over the Republican Party then our problems will be solved. These two man will use every terrorism tool in their Christian tool box and America will be cleansed of pagans like me.

    I tried to expose this horror of what has become of the American Christian plans and failed. It will take a movement so strong that no superstition will have power to destroy a single American.

    Even here, many have the power to destroy others but not a single use of imagination can stand up to the destruction. Americans are a free people and removing a single freedom from anyone will destroy the system.

Comments are closed.