The Establishment (Those Corporate Psychopaths) Does Not Want Ron Paul on the Presidential Ticket

When asked recently by Wolf Blitzer whom he would vote for in a race between Paul and Obama, Gingrich replied: “I think you’d have a very hard choice.” When asked recently by Chris Wallace about Ron Paul, Huckabee replied that his views on foreign policy “are so much an anathema to Republicans and Democrats and what I call middle of the road people. He has a core of fanatical believers, and they don’t represent mainstream Americans. It is not okay for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.” But of Obama Huckabee said: “I think he’s a decent, patriotic American. He loves America different than me, but I don’t doubt he loves America.” Is there any doubt that the Republican Party is first and foremost the war party? Statists in the GOP might be able to tolerate some of Ron Paul’s economic and limited-government views, but never his views on foreign policy. They are incorrigible, bloodthirsty warmongers.' - Laurence Vance, Do Gingrich and Huckabee Prefer President Obama to Ron Paul?, LRC Blog, December 28, 2011

Over the years I've met my fair share of monsters – rogue individuals, for the most part. But as regulation in the UK and the US has loosened its restraints, the monsters have proliferated. In a paper recently published in the Journal of Business Ethics entitled "The Corporate Psychopaths: Theory of the Global Financial Crisis", Clive R Boddy identifies these people as psychopaths. "They are," he says, "simply the 1 per cent of people who have no conscience or empathy." And he argues: "Psychopaths, rising to key senior positions within modern financial corporations, where they are able to influence the moral climate of the whole organisation and yield considerable power, have largely caused the [banking] crisis'. And Mr Boddy is not alone. In Jon Ronson's widely acclaimed book "The Psychopath Test", Professor Robert Hare told the author: "I should have spent some time inside the Stock Exchange as well. Serial killer psychopaths ruin families. Corporate and political and religious psychopaths ruin economies. They ruin societies." - Brian Basham, Independent, Beware Corporate Psychopaths – They are Still Occupying Positions of Power, December 29, 2011

Paul Builds Campaign on Doomsday Scenarios

December 27, 2011

Reuters - The man who might win the Republican Party's first presidential nominating contest fears that the United Nations may take control of the U.S. money supply.

Campaigning for the January 3 Iowa caucuses, Ron Paul warns of eroding civil liberties, a Soviet Union-style economic collapse and violence in the streets.

The Texas congressman, author of "End the Fed," also wants to eliminate the central banking system that underpins the world's largest economy.

"Not only would we audit the Federal Reserve, we may well curtail the Federal Reserve," Paul told a cheering crowd of more than 100 in this small Iowa city last week.

Paul, 76, is facing questions for racist writings that appeared under his name two decades ago, which he has disavowed as the work of "ghost writers."

But Paul's dark-horse presidential bid ultimately could founder, analysts and others say, because of increasing questions about how his unorthodox vision of government would work in the real world.

Republican rivals criticize his anti-war, isolationist approach to foreign policy as dangerously naive, and object to his plans to slash the Pentagon's budget and pull back U.S. troops from overseas.

Non-partisan analysts say his economic proposals - drastic spending cuts, elimination of the Federal Reserve and a return to the gold standard - would plunge the country back into recession.

"Paul appeals to people whose knowledge of major issues is superficial (and) he sees conspiracies where there are none," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Potomac Research Group, an analysis firm. "If he does well in Iowa, which is likely, it will be an enormous embarrassment to the Republicans."

However, Paul's calls for a dramatically limited government and a hands-off foreign policy are resonating among voters who have grown deeply alienated from Washington after a decade of war and nearly five years of economic malaise.

"Obama got into office and I can't tell the difference between him and Bush," said Deanna Pitman, a homemaker from Bloomfield, Iowa, citing President Barack Obama's support for policies such as the Wall Street bailout and the war in Afghanistan that began under George W. Bush.

Polls show Paul jockeying for the lead in the Iowa caucuses, and political observers say his organization in the state is unmatched. His campaign stops draw hundreds of enthusiastic supporters, along with undecided voters who are giving him a look.

On the campaign trail, he reaches out to Tea Party supporters on the right and Occupy Wall Street supporters on the left.

Some potential supporters from the left have been put off by Paul's uncompromising support for the free market.

At a campaign stop in this small city of about 7,000, Paul told breast cancer survivor Danielle Lin that insurance companies should not be required to offer coverage to people who are already sick.

"It's sort of like me living on the Gulf Coast, not buying insurance until I see the hurricane," said Paul, whose Galveston-based district was devastated by a hurricane in 2008. "Insurance is supposed to measure risk."

The response left Lin in tears. While her insurance covered her treatment, she said, several of her friends were not so fortunate.

"I watched three friends die because they didn't have insurance," said Lin, a registered Democrat who is looking for a Republican candidate to support this time.

"Nobody can afford private insurance, nobody can. And they're dead."

APOCALYPTIC SCENARIOS

Paul can wax apocalyptic as he warns of the dangers of a diluted currency and a deeply indebted government. His doomsday scenarios often are incomplete, leaving listeners room to fill in the blanks.

He draws parallels between the current situation in the United States and that of the former Soviet Union, whose economy collapsed amid the union's breakup and civil unrest in 1991.

Paul acknowledges that his proposal to avoid that outcome - an immediate $1 trillion spending cut that would slash the federal budget by more than one-third and eliminate the departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development - could have some unpleasant side effects.

"I'm afraid of violence coming," he told a crowd of more than 600 in Bettendorf, Iowa. "When you see what the government is preparing for, and the arrests and military law, and the demonstrations in the streets, some people aren't going to be convinced so easily that you don't owe them a living."

At the earlier stop in Washington, he said the Federal Reserve was poised to "bail out" the Euro zone, a move that he said ultimately would cause the United States to surrender control of its own currency to the United Nations.

"This monetary crisis is well known by the international bankers. They want the U.N. to come in and solve this problem," he said. "The dollar will probably eventually disintegrate and be taken over. But I don't want the U.N. issuing that currency."

Economists note that Paul's long-standing proposal to return the dollar to a gold standard would force the United States to relinquish control of its currency.

"We would still have monetary policy - it would be set by gold miners in South Africa and Uzbekistan, rather than bureaucrats in Washington," said Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist with JPMorgan Chase.

"If you like what OPEC means for oil prices, you'd love what the gold standard would do to financial markets."

Ex-Aide to Ron Paul Makes Stunning Claims About Old Boss: Anti-Israel, 9/11 Truther, Doesn’t Believe U.S. Had Any Business Fighting Hitler

December 27, 2011

The Blaze - Eric Dondero, who worked for Ron Paul on and off for a total of 12 years dating back to 1987, released a jaw-dropping statement in Right Wing News Monday in regards to his old boss. It appears Dondero wrote the statement to answer questions presented to him of late by various media outlets in regards to controversial newsletters connected to the congressman that have consumed his campaign for President.

While attempting to defend Paul as not being a “racist” or “homophobic,” as many have accused him of being given the hateful language in the newsletters, Dondero “sets the record straight” by making shocking claims about the beliefs and behind-closed-doors statements of the man vying to be Commander in Chief. The Paul campaign has already reacted to Dondero’s claims, labeling him as a disgruntled ex-employee. Nonetheless, the allegations are astounding.

Dondero begins by strongly refuting claims that Paul is a “racist,” saying he never heard Paul make any racist comments in the 12 years he worked for the man, and makes clear that the congressman has frequently hired blacks and Hispanics for his office staff. However, Dondero makes “one caveat,“ stating that Paul is ”out of touch,” with both Hispanic and Black culture:

“He is completely clueless when it comes to Hispanic and Black culture, particularly Mexican-American culture. And he is most certainly intolerant of Spanish and those who speak strictly Spanish in his presence, (as are a number of Americans, nothing out of the ordinary here.)”

Dondero, who is half-Jewish himself, says Paul is not Anti-Semitic. He says Paul has no issue with Jewish-Americans and can “categorically” say that he has never heard anything Anti-Semitic, slurs or any sort of derogatory marks come out of Paul’s mouth. However, Dondero claims Paul is “most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general:”

“He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.”

Dondero moves to the claims that Rep. Paul is a “homo-phobe.” The former aide claims that Paul is not bigoted towards homosexuals but ”personally uncomfortable” around them. Dondero points to two instances to back his claims. One being in 1988, when Paul was staying with an openly gay Libertarian supporter for a 3-day campaign swing in the SF Bay Area, and pulled the young personal assistant aside demanding Dondero find a bathroom he could use because he did not want to use the one at his homosexual friend’s home. The second instance occurred many years later when a fellow staffer told Dondero that Paul allegedly swatted away a handshake from flamboyant gay man who was a “hardcore campaign supporter.”

After giving his piece on the areas he feels the “liberal media is ferociously attacking Ron” on, like “stupid and whacky things on race and gays he may have said or written in the past,” Dondero moves to what he considers the real problem with his old boss: foreign policy.

Based on countless “arguments/discussions” with Paul over the years, Dondero claims that no matter how hard the candidate denies it “Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist.”

“For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that ‘saving the Jews,’ was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just ‘blowback,’ for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such. ”

Moving to more contemporary subjects, Dondero states “with absolute certainty” that Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan and to any military reaction to the 9/11 attacks.

“He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for ‘invading’ Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.”

Dondero claims that Paul, up to the eve of the resolution vote, was telling staffers that he planned to vote “No” on a resolution initiating the War in Afghanistan. Dondero claims that all of the congressman’s district staff told his Chief of Staff that they would immediately resign if Ron voted “No.”

“At the very last minute Ron switched his stance and voted ‘Yay,’ much to the great relief of Jackie and I. He never explained why, but I strongly suspected that he realized it would have been political suicide; that staunchly conservative Victoria would revolt, and the Republicans there would ensure that he would not receive the nomination for the seat in 2002.”

The claims come just over a week before the start of Republican primary voting.

Eric Dondero was a Senior Aide to Congressman Paul from 1997-2003, Ron Paul for Congress Campaign Coordinator from 1995-1996, National Organizer for Draft Ron Paul for President from 1991-1992, and a personal assistant for Ron, Libertarian for President from 1987-1988. That said, Dondero’s claims should be taken with a grain of salt.

Paul campaign manager Jesse Benton emailed The Weekly Standard Sunday afternoon in regards to Dondero’s latest statement:

“Eric Dondero is a disgruntled former staffer who was fired for performance issues. He has zero credibility and should not be taken seriously.”

A Facebook group was created during the 2008 campaign, titled “Eric Dondero is Slime!” making similar allegations to Benton, that Dondero is a disgruntled former employee attempting to enact an unjust revenge on his former boss.

Dondero disputes he was fired, telling CBS News he resigned in 2003 after going “back and forth” with Paul for months. Dondero even challenged Paul for his congressional seat in 2007.

Dondero is currently the publisher and editor of LibertarianRepublican.net.

Why Neo-Cons Hate Ron Paul’s Honest Foreign Policy

This article, originally titled “Ron Paul: Propagandist Or Prophet?”, was written by Jeremy R. Hammond and published at Foreign Policy Journal

December 27, 2011

Alt-Market - Ron Paul is “the best-known American propagandist for our enemies”, writes Dorothy Rabinowitz in a recent Wall Street Journal hit piece. To support the charge, she writes that Dr. Paul “assures audiences” that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 “took place only because of U.S. aggression and military actions”. It’s “True,” she writes, that “we’ve heard the assertions before”, but only “rarely have we heard in any American political figure such exclusive concern for, and appreciation of, the motives of those who attacked us”—and, she adds, he doesn’t care about the victims of the attacks.

The vindictive rhetoric aside, what is it, exactly, that Ron Paul is guilty of here? It is completely uncontroversial that the 9/11 attacks were a consequence of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. The 9/11 Commission Report, for instance, points out that Osama bin Laden “stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel.”

Notice that Rabinowitz doesn’t actually deny that the 9/11 attacks were motivated by such U.S. policies as these. Rather, Ron Paul’s sin is that he actually acknowledges this truth. The fact that other political figures choose to ignore or deny this fact hardly reflects poorly on Dr. Paul. Refusing to bury one’s head deeply up one’s arse, as Rabinowitz is so obviously willing to do, is hardly a character trait to be faulted.

From this position of willful ignorance, Rabinowitz then implores her readers that “a President Paul” would “be making decisions about the nation’s defense, national security, domestic policy and much else.” The conclusion one is supposed to draw is that anyone who could actually acknowledge the ugly truth that 9/11 was a consequence of U.S. foreign policy isn’t fit for office; only someone who is willing to delude him or herself that the U.S. was attacked because “they hate our freedoms” is worthy of the presidency. Anyone who wishes to change U.S. foreign policy is unfit; only a person who is willing to continue the status quo should be allowed a seat in the Oval Office.

Rabinowitz warns that “The world may not be ready for another American president traversing half the globe to apologize for the misdeeds of the nation he had just been elected to lead.” It’s not clear who she has in mind with the “another”, but it’s by now a familiar refrain. “I’ll never apologize for the United States of America. Ever. I don’t care what the facts are,” President George H. W. Bush declared to the world after a U.S. warship had shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in Iranian airspace, killing all 290 passengers aboard, including 65 children. Surely, any president willing to apologize for the murder of innocent children must not lead the nation. The horror of the thought!

And then there is Dr. Paul’s position with respect to Iran. He recently urged his host in an interview “to understand that Iran’s leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had never mentioned any intention of wiping Israel off the map.” Here, again, it’s notable that Rabinowitz doesn’t actually dispute this. Dr. Paul is, of course, correct. The claim that Iran has threatened to acquire nuclear weapons to “wipe Israel off the map” is a complete fabrication of Western media propaganda, and mainstream corporate news agencies know it is a fabrication, but repeat it obligatorily anyway.

Rabinowitz presumably does, as well, so instead of challenging Dr. Paul on the facts, she quotes him saying “They’re just defending themselves” and writing, “Presumably he was referring to Iran’s wishes for a bomb.” In the interview referred to, Dr. Paul had said,

“I don’t want them to get the nuclear weapon”, but pointed out that Israel’s defense minister, “Ehud Barak said that they’re acting logically, and they’re acting in their self-interest, and if he was an Iranian, he would probably think the same way” (Dr. Paul is correct on this, also; it’s true that Barak has “quipped that if he were an Iranian, he would take part in the development of nuclear weapons”).

Rabinowitz also disinclines herself to point out what Dr. Paul said next:

“But there is a gross distortion to this debate that they are on the verge of a nuclear weapon. There is no evidence that they are on the verge of a nuclear weapon, and we shouldn’t be ready to start another war” (Dr. Paul is correct on this, too, and has rightly drawn parallels to the current propaganda about Iran and the lies that preceded the war on Iraq).

So, once again, we see that Ron Paul’s true sin is his failure to jump on board with the war propaganda. A further sin is that he said after 9/11 that “there was ‘glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq.” But is the contention that those policymakers responsible for the war on Iraq were not happy that they now had the opportunity to do so sustainable?

Is Rabinowitz unaware that in 1996, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser coauthored a document prepared for the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, which made the case for overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s regime? Or that the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), whose membership was a virtual who’s who of so-called “neoconservatives” calling for war on Iraq, had a manifesto calling for regime change and stating that the “process of transformation” of the U.S. military into a force to “preserve American military preeminence” around the globe “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor”? That PNAC director Robert Kagan acknowledged that the 9/11 attacks were the “Pearl Harbor” he and his ilk were looking for, writing in the Washington Post that 9/11 must be used to “to launch a new era of American internationalism. Let’s not squander this opportunity”?

Yet again, it becomes evident that Ron Paul’s sin is that he is too willing to be honest with the American people and speak the truth about U.S. foreign policy. Just as Dr. Paul predicted and warned about the housing bubble and financial crisis of 2008, so did he predict and warn prior to 9/11 that U.S. foreign policy would result in what the intelligence community terms “blowback”. Ron Paul has a long record of speaking truth to power and making predictions that have come to pass.

Rabinowitz concludes, “It seemed improbable that the best-known of American propagandists for our enemies could be near the top of the pack in the Iowa contest, but there it is.” That Ron Paul has emerged in Iowa as a frontrunner is a hopeful sign that Americans are waking up to the realities of U.S. foreign policy and are tired of crude propagandists for U.S. wars and empire insulting their intelligence, as Rabinowitz—who is a member of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board—does so well in her column.