Unbossed and
unbought news and information you can use
Vol. 15 No. 1…Dedicated to the Dialogue on
Race…January 5, 2011
Bit of History
Ronald Earnest Paul
Born
August 20, 1935 in 
grew
up in the western
As a child, Paul
worked in the family business, checking hand-washed milk bottles for spots. To
earn extra money, Paul worked as a paper boy and later at a local drug store.
Paul attended
In 1961, Paul
received his Doctor of Medicine degree from
In 1968, Paul and
his wife moved to
Dr. Paul became
active in politics in the 1970's, failing in his first bid for a congressional
seat in 1974. In the special election two years later to replace Representative
Robert R. Casey, Paul was victorious. However, his tenure was brief; he failed
to win in the general election later that year. Dr. Paul ran again in 1978 and
was elected, then twice re-elected. A critic of the
In 1984, Paul unsuccessfully ran for the Senate. Succeeded in the House of Representatives by Tom DeLay, Paul returned to his private practice.
In 1988, Paul ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket. He came in third in the 1988 general election, receiving almost half a million votes.
In the mid-1990s,
Paul returned to the Republican Party and ran for the party's nomination for a
seat in the House of Representatives. Against significant odds, Paul defeated
his opponent in the 1996 general election. He has remained in the House of
Representatives ever since, representing
Paul has been
consistent in his views of limited government, low taxes, free markets, a sound
monetary policy and pro-life issues, unlike many of his Republican peers. He
voted against the Patriot Act and the war in
Dr. Paul initiated the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (FREE) during his first term in Congress. In 1976, the foundation began publishing a monthly newsletter. His conservative and libertarian ideas have been expressed in numerous published articles and books, including Challenge to Liberty; A Republic, If You Can Keep It; Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom (2011); End The Fed (2009); The Revolution: A Manifesto (2008); Pillars of Prosperity (2008); and A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship (2007). A counselor to the Ludwig von Mises Institute, he has received numerous awards and honors.
In 2008, Paul made an unsuccessful bid for the Republican presidential nomination, garnering a great deal of support as the anti-establishment candidate. He is currently seeking the Republican Party nomination for president. On January 3, 2012, he came in third in the Iowa Caucus behind Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.
Dr. Paul remains
married to Carol Wells. The couple has five children. Their son, Randal Paul,
is the junior
Dr. Paul on the
Record
The song and dance about Rep. Ron Paul being a racist has certainly interjected race relations into the Republican presidential debate. Except for Newt Gingrich's prescription to improve the work ethic of poor children, there has been scant mention of the problems facing black and poor people in this country. So, the Paul controversy has shed some light where there has been nothing except darkness. Excited by the controversy, one colorful virtual commentator remarked that Paul's efforts to refute the charge were reminiscent of the dance of a June bug teetered to a string.
Apparently, the charge of racism against Rep. Paul revolves around articles, which were not written by him, that were published more than twenty years ago in his monthly newsletter. The issue was raised during his 2008 bid for the presidency and run for Congress. It is now being rehashed because Paul is among the top contenders for the Republican nomination.
An avowed
libertarian and defender of the US Constitution, Rep. Paul did not support the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, which he viewed as an attack on liberty and a
violation of the principle of private property. In one segment of the CNN
Sunday news program State of the
Paul: "Well, we just could have done it in a better way, because of...the Jim Crow laws obviously had to get rid of and we are all better off for that and that is an important issue and I strongly supported that.
What you don't want to do is undermine the concept of liberty in that process and what they did in that bill was they destroyed the principle of private property and private choices. So, if you do this, all civil liberties are protected by property rights, whether it’s your TV station that's a piece of private property, whether it's the newspaper, whether church building or whether it's the bedroom. This is something that people don't quite understand that civil liberties aren't divorced from property. So that if you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can do and you ignore and undermine the principle of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms. And, that is exactly what has happened.
Look at what has happened with the Patriot Act; they can come into our houses, our bedrooms, our businesses. And, so the principle of private property has been undermined and it was started back then.
But, they can't twist that and say that I was against or favored Jim Crow laws or anything else. I mean it's the government that causes so much of the racial tensions when you look at anything from slavery on down to segregation in the military and the Jim Crow laws. And, right now, the real problem we face today is the discrimination in our court system -- the war on drugs. Just think of how biased that is against minorities. They go into prison much way out of proportion to their numbers; they get the death penalty out of proportion to their numbers. And, if you look at how minorities suffer in ordinary wars, whether there is a draft or no draft, they suffer much more out of proportion.
So, those are the kinds of things that discrimination that have to be dealt with. But, you don't want to ever undermine the principle of private property and private choices in order to solve some of these problems. You need to repeal the very, very bad laws that governments have propagated over the many centuries, because it is the government so often that institutionalizes segregation and slavery and all the other things. So, the understanding of private property will solve our problem, and we, indeed need to look at the war on drugs, if anybody cares about the abuse of our civil liberties and the abuse of minorities in the court system."
While Rep. Paul's
explanation may seem like a tortured dance to some, it makes perfect sense when
one considers the "very, very bad laws" that govern this country.
Probably the worst of these laws is the Three-Fifths Compromise of Article I,
Section 2 of the US Constitution -- the grand bargain struck between the
Founding Fathers to legalize slavery, a bargain that made black people private
property rather than citizens. Despite subsequent amendments to the
Constitution, it was never repealed and the institutions that supported it were
never dismantled. Rep. Paul's explanation for his lack of support for the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 is an admission that the government is responsible for the
institutionalized racism and discrimination that marginalizes the lives of
minorities in this country.
Reject NDAA: Defend the
Constitution
By John Burl Smith
Prior to passage of the FY12 National Defense Authorization Act (12-12-11), Representatives Hank Johnson (D-GA), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), along with 30 House members sent a letter to the chairs and ranking members of the U.S. House and Senate Armed Services Committees, outlining what they believed were serious threats to citizens' individual freedom in the United States (US) and requesting reexamination of the language authorizing detention by the military.
Speaking
in opposition to the bill on the U.S. House floor, Rep. Johnson led the effort
to remove several dangerous last-minute changes relating to detainees from the
bill. "Mr. Speaker, we must reject indefinite detention of Americans and
defend the Constitution. ... No matter how you spin it, it's wrong. It's
unjust, it's Orwellian, and it's not who we are. Any expansive authorization
for detention by and use of military forces against broadly defined adversaries
substantially exceeding the scope of authorizations already in our laws must be
rejected. We are deeply concerned that this provision could undermine the
Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth amendment rights of
Elected in 2006,
Johnson made clear his opposition to the
Johnson and his colleagues came down on the side of those who say the President should not have signed the bill. Strangely, opponents to specific language in the bill included the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the FBI, the Director of the CIA, the head of the Justice Department's National Security Division, and the Secretary of Defense.
After originally issuing a veto threat because of the aforementioned provision, Mr. Obama did another about-face two days before the deadline and signed the defense spending bill into law (12-31-11). While admitting he has "serious reservations with certain provisions related to how suspected terrorists are held and questioned, President Obama offered this statement, "I want to clarify that my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation. My administration will interpret that provision in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."
Civil liberties advocates and other activists responded with skepticism to Obama's promises to nullify certain provisions of the law for two reasons. First, by authorizing the killing of a US citizen who had not been arrested, arraigned or indicted, Mr. Obama certainly violated the spirit, if not the letter, of individual protection in the Constitution. Secondly, a presidential "signing statement" does not carry the force of law.
Denouncing the
provision as "ill-conceived" because it will "do nothing to
improve the security of the United States, Mr. Obama defended his signing of
the bill by saying he believes he can "circumvent" this and other
provisions to which he objects. This statement seems to be only a ploy to
placate disgruntled supporters who feel betrayed by Obama's flip-flops on
closing Guantánamo and ending the war. The reality is Congress blocked
his effort to close Gitmo and move terror suspects there to a maximum security
facility in
Moreover, candidate,
Obama was very critical of Pres. George Bush for using "signing
statements," charging that he was circumventing the will of Congress.
Furthermore, he demanded that Mr. Bush veto bills and insist they be re-written
to his likening. Now as in many other instances, Mr. Obama continues to eat
from George Bush's plate while 
complaining
about the cook.
Civil liberties groups and activists outraged over language in the NDAA believe the provision lays the legal groundwork for the indefinite detention of US citizens without trial. Debra Sweet, national director of the World Can't Wait said, "It's quite severe. If this continues, people will not be able to count on constitutional protections at all."
David Gespass,
president of the National Lawyers Guild, went even further in his assessment,
calling it, "an enormous attack on the
Section 1021 defines who can be detained by the military. The definition of "covered persons" under the provision includes not only those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, 2001, but also "a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the US or its coalition partners, including anyone who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."
Critics see problems with such language that includes vague terms such as "substantial support", "belligerent act", or "directly supported". Moreover, because the act allows for individuals suspected of support or belligerence to be held indefinitely without trial - until the end of the "war on terror", which could be never - there could be no opportunities for these individuals to challenge the vagueness of the charges against them.
Hoping to further
define and narrow the scope of the Act, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
(12-15-11) introduced the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011 (DPGA), with 15
co-sponsors. She said, "This legislation states, an authorization to use
military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not
authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful
permanent resident of the
Meanwhile, angry
citizens in
Venue for an Artist
2012 Predictions (Excerpts)
Junious Ricardo
Stanton
"Bad habits are like a comfortable bed, easy to get into, but hard to get out of." - Anonymous
While for some it may seem presumptuous of me to make predictions for 2012, actually it is relatively easy. Why? Because you don't have to be a pundit, prognosticator, Swami or Fortune Teller to make predictions. Quiet as it’s kept the best predictor of current and future behavior is past behavioral patterns. Human beings are creatures of habit, we all have them, they are an integral part of our make up. Habits are attitudes and behaviors we repeat over and over again so often they become second nature.
If
you really want to know something about a person simply observe them over time.
This is what sociologists and anthropologists do. They study and observe human
behaviors.
I say all this because the predictions I'm making about what will probably occur in 2012 are no brainers given observable past patterns and history. For example in our community, the African-American community, if current trends continue, we will spend over 95% of our money with other ethnic groups enriching them and keeping ourselves in a woeful state of economic backwardness and dependency. Based upon past trends, our community will continue to eschew a "Do for self" mentality and work ethic, we will continue to act like there is nothing wrong with this or the socio-economic and political situation we are in and we will choose to mindlessly follow the dictates of our self-aggrandizing leadership class, Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington D.C.
Even in an economic downturn black folks love to spend money. In 2012, we are projected to spend (and the operative word here is spend as opposed to invest or save) 1.1 trillion that's with a T; and we'll get little or nothing in return except more depreciated gizmos and gadgets (www.marketingcharts.com/television/affluent-african-americans-making-impact-on-consumer-economy-3412/). I also predict the various ethnic groups who get rich off of us to continue to laugh all the way to the bank and hold us in even higher contempt.
As we all know, 2012 is an election year, so expect the totally insane partisan rhetoric and deliberate gridlock to continue in Congress. Look for the Republicans to ramp up their dirty tricks to get Ron Paul the only sane Republican candidate out of the race, leaving only the most rabid warmongers and fascists to duke it out with Obama. In this scenario, Obama's warmongering will seem tame and "reasonable" compared to the Republican crazies so either way the Military Industrial Complex, and the international banksters will win. Speaking of Wall Street, the Too Big To Fail firms, and the corporatist special interests will continue to call the shots while conditions worsen for working class and poor people. The economy will decline even more, unemployment and homelessness will rise and more tent cities will pop up around the country. The public's tolerance and approval of Congress will fall even lower as the Kleptocrats continue to rob and plunder our pensions and savings and go Scott free. Look for more social unrest in 2012.
On the international
front the
The Anglo-American-
French- Israeli hydra will also continue their mischief in
I know many people
may be worried because the Mayans left an ancient prophesy about the world
ending in 2012. However I think we will stumble on despite the insanity of the
global elites, their secret societies, their pawns and puppets in high and low
places. But if the world does go poof, it will be because the psychopaths in
There is a saying: "Insanity is doing the same things over and over with the same people expecting different results." As the last Poets said "This Is Madness!" The good news is, we can stop the madness!! If we want peace, stability and prosperity, we will have to do things differently. The only way to stop or break a current habit is to start another one. So, if we truly want 2012 to be really different, and better; we will have to think, plan and most importantly act differently. Happy New Year!
About Me:
Disgruntled says: An
examination of presidential pardons over the past decade by ProPublica shows
that white criminals are four times more likely than minorities to be granted
pardons. Moreover, the data show that blacks are the least likely to receive
presidential pardons or commutations. The disparate treatment revealed by this
data parallels the treatment accorded blacks and other minorities during the
real estate bubble, when even blacks with good credit and stable incomes were
steered into sub-prime mortgages. While the pardon data examined dealt
primarily with the Bush administration, it is important to note that nothing
has changed in the way pardons are handled in the Obama administration. In
fact, despite the known injustice of the war on the drugs and the havoc it has
wrecked in urban communities across the nation, President Obama has granted
fewer requests for clemency than any president in the last century. While
blacks have been willing to excuse his failure to address specific problems
plaguing urban
Disgruntled wants to know: When it was
initially revealed that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) contained
language that could be 
construed
as applying to the indefinite detention of US citizens, President Barack Obama
indicated he would veto such a bill. However, based on statements made by Senator
Carl Levin during Senate debate, the Obama administration asked that language
precluding US citizens and lawful residents from Section 1031 be removed. There
was never an intention on the part of Obama to veto the measure. The
reservation contained in his signing statement is a thinly veiled ploy and
mainstream media have succeeded in aiding him in this duplicity. There is
C-Span video of Senator Levin explaining what the Obama administration
requested. See it for yourself on C-Span or the brief clip at www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=xQgXZxzgRp0&NR=1.
With all the disappointments from the "yes we can" man, can we
believe anything that passes his lips?
Disgruntled feels: Denial! Published on
Salon.com, Peter Birkenhead's article "Why the White South is Still in
Denial about Slavery" does a credible job of describing the fact that
southern whites exist in a state of denial regarding slavery. However, I
believe his article should be expanded to include all of
Mailbox: E-Mails, Faxes and Telephone Calls
Email
www.dw-world.de...Obama signs 'toughest yet' Iran sanctions...By David
Levitz...Mounting tensions between the United States and Iran are likely to
flare even further after US President Barack Obama signed into law tough new
sanctions targeting Iran's banking and oil sectors. Effectively, the measures
will force companies and financial institutions throughout the world to choose
between the
Email www.presstv.ir...'Invading 
Barack
Obama if he decides on a military confrontation with
Email cosmidot@yahoogroup.com...Obama's change: From kidnapping and torture to
assassination...The promise to scrap his predecessor's hardliner war-on-terror
policies, which helped Barack Obama win presidential election, is apparently
off the table. The political reality is that the 
current
administration is doing quite the opposite thing. Long before he became