Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Spammers and criminals for Ron Paul

From metafilter:
When Ron Paul email spam started hitting inboxes in late October, UAB Computer Forensics Director Gary Warner published findings on the spam's textual patterns and the illicit botnet used to spread it -- findings which were picked up by media outlets and tech websites like Salon, Ars Technica, and Wired Magazine's "Threat Level" blog, the latter in a set of followup posts by writer Sarah Stirland: 1, 2, 3.

The Ron Paul fan response was swift and decisive: clearly the botnet was the work of anti-Ron Paul hackers trying to discredit his campaign, and Rudy Giuliani had paid Stirland (and not UAB Computer Forensics) to do a smear piece -- as claimed by a YouTube video pointing to posts on RudyGiulianiForum.com. Thus proving, once again, that the Ron Paul campaign's greatest liability is not so much his far-right conspiracy-driven antifederal libertarianism, but rather the spittle-flecked anger of his own noisiest supporters.
There are definitely a lot of nuts among Ron Paul's supporters. Meanwhile, he raised $3.8 million yesterday (apparently a number revised downward from $4.3 million) in the largest one-day online political fundraiser ever. Intrade currently shows Paul as the third most likely GOP nominee, after Giuliani and Romney.

A few other Ron Paul-related blog posts that I realize I've neglected to mention here, from Dispatches from the Culture Wars:

"Is Ron Paul a Dominionist?"
Argues that Paul appears to have much in common with some theocrats.

"Sandefur on Ron Paul" Doubts that Paul is a dominionist, but suggests he might be a Thomas DiLorenzo-style neo-confederate who thinks we don't even need a federal government (in which case he wouldn't really be the supporter of the Constitution that he seems to be) and that the U.S. Civil War wasn't about slavery (which is pernicious nonsense).

I also just came across this story, which says that Paul would like to see the U.S. Constitution amended to remove the subject of abortion from the purview of the courts, which is yet more anti-constitutional insanity.

18 comments:

Blar said...

Here they come, the anti-paul extremists, nutjobs, and smearbots all out in full force.

Rebel Prof said...

Yep, the "smear Ron Paul" campaigns have begun, sadly it was Fred that had a convicted Criminal working in his campaign. Bookmaking, Cocaine trafficing, and dealing pot - at the multiple pound level, and only got probation - he must also have connections. a Brother would get 10 years for that crime, and gets 2 years for a bit of weed. Ron paul would end that, and that's why they hate him.

Jim Lippard said...

I don't hate Ron Paul, and I'm fully supportive of ending the war on drugs (and the war on Internet gambling). I also agree with his opposition to the war in Iraq, his opposition to torture, and his support of the Constitution (even though he gets parts of it wrong). He's easily the best of the Republican candidates for president, but that's faint praise.

I do think Ron Paul is somewhat of a kook and would make a poor president, but that's because of his stances on separation of church and state, ending birthright citizenship, illegal immigration, abortion, free trade agreements, a return to the gold standard, and his apparent gullibility for conspiracy theories of the fringe. And probably a few other areas I'm forgetting.

Hume's Ghost said...

Dave Neiwert is a journalist who covered the patriot/milita movement in the 90s and knew Paul from back then when he would pop up in their circuit.

At his blog - Orcinus - multiple posts have been written about Paul and his pandering to extremists and conspiracists of various sorts.

Man of the Hour at that link you'll see a picture of Ron Paul shaking hands withs the founder of the South Carolina Constitution Party at the Patriot baquest that was thrown in his honor.

Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast responds to Paul's defense of his Survival Report letter - posted by a neo-nazi and archived by Nizkor - that says that America is being attacked by terrorists who can be identified by the color of their skin (black)

The Trouble with Ron more on Paul and his affinity for loons, and why they like him. She says that Paul got a 100% rating from the Christian Coalition but I have never seen any evidence of that (I've seen scores of about 75%). There's a quote in this one I found at Stormfront that concisely explains why such people like Paul so much.

Ron Paul vs. the New World Order Neiwert writing about Paul's track record of dalliances with extremists/conspiracists

No fault of his own explains why the fringe likes Paul

olvlzl said...

Ron Paul is politically insignificant, he won't get the nomination, his only hope at having an impact would be to run a third party campaign and, unfortunately, I don't see it happening. I'm kind of interested in his supporters thinking that anyone on the left would fall for his odd mix of fascism with libertarian talk. Having always figured that if libertarians ever took power they would soon discover their program is pathetically unrealistic and that fascism was their fall back position. Both are essentially the same form of arrested emotional development.

Primitive nativeism might have the virtue of wanting to avoid entanglements in foreign affairs but it's energies would turn from those to finding the enemy within. That's what they did before.

Victor said...

You said, "stances on separation of church and state, ending birthright citizenship, illegal immigration, abortion, free trade agreements, a return to the gold standard, and his apparent gullibility for conspiracy theories of the fringe. "

Separation of Church and State. He believes States should handle the issue not the Federal Govt, because the constitution says "Congress shall make no law regarding religion."

Birthright Citizenship - He wants to eliminate birthright citizenship to ILLEGAL immigrants. What's wrong with that? If you haven't noticed anchor babies get a free ride.

Illegal Immigration - If people are illegally here they are breaking the law. Ron Paul wants to eliminate welfare, free education and free health care for illegals. Illegals are forcing hospitals to close shop. What's wrong with his stance?

olvlzl said...

Separation of Church and State. He believes States should handle the issue not the Federal Govt, because the constitution says "Congress shall make no law regarding religion."

- "States should handle the issue" is shorthand for saying he doesn't have any problem with states establishing an official religion, in fact, though perhaps with some kind of legal smokescreen as cover. "States rights" is the excuse for allowing every horror seen in the 19th century including segregation and other forms of legalized discrimination.

Birthright Citizenship - He wants to eliminate birthright citizenship to ILLEGAL immigrants. What's wrong with that? If you haven't noticed anchor babies get a free ride.

- You can't "eleiminate birthright citizenship to ILLEGAL immigrants" since the constitution grants automatic citizenship to anyone born within the United States. If they are born here they have citizenship. I think what you mean is children born to those here illegally. Would you extend this to grandchildren and great grand children unto the third and forth generations? Because you might find a lot less support for the logical extension of this. In actual effect, it's just another means of exploiting anti-Latino bigotry.

Illegal Immigration - If people are illegally here they are breaking the law. Ron Paul wants to eliminate welfare, free education and free health care for illegals. Illegals are forcing hospitals to close shop. What's wrong with his stance?

- Why stop at people who break that law? Why not extend that to people who break other laws, including white collar criminals? You're a lot more likely to be ripped off or hurt by a white collar criminal than an illegal immigrant.

What's wrong with it is that you would allow people to die for lack of the most basic humanitarian services, to create an even larger underclass of uneducated people to be exploited by those who anyone with a sense of reality would know Ron Paul and the rest of you would give tacit or explicit permission to exploit them, in any way any of the states would see fit to allow. It's a recipe for the worst of the conditions of the 19th century to return.

You know what is the real evidence is that conservatives in the United States don't care about illegal immigration except to exploit it as yet another useful form of bigotry among the majority population? Conservatives have promoted policies that keep people in Latin America in poverty and without education, the conditions that create the pressure for illegal immigration. They have since the founding of the country and the desire of the slave holding class to extend their influence. That's the reason that Texas and other parts of the South West were stolen from Mexico, why dictator after corrupt dictator was supported, etc. The right in America is hardly interested in really eliminating the conditions that produce illegal immigration when it is so useful to them both politically and economically. And if those problems were solved, most of the illegal immigrants would do what most people around the world do, stay home with the people closest to them.

Ron Paul is no different from the rest of the far right in America, it's just he keeps his sheet in the linen closet. But it's still there.

Jim Lippard said...

olvlzl: While reading Victor's comment my responses were very close to yours, so I'll just add a little bit of additional comment.

Victor: "Separation of Church and State. He believes States should handle the issue not the Federal Govt, because the constitution says 'Congress shall make no law regarding religion.'"

The establishment clause also applies to the states in virtue of the 14th Amendment. While many states (including Arizona) have Constitutions which prohibit the use of public funds to promote religion, such actions by state and local governments are also prohibited by the U.S. Constitution in virtue of the fact that the Bill of Rights applies to the states via the 14th Amendment (see its second sentence). The framers of the 14th Amendment, in their debate on its content, clearly intended all of the "privileges and immunities" and individual rights in the Bill of Rights to be included in what the individual states must respect, and that's how it's been enforced since then. Ron Paul doesn't know what he's talking about when he says false things about the separation of church and state and claims that the U.S. Constitution is "replete with references to God." States *cannot* establish state religions. We already experimented with that in the past with the Massachusetts colony, and it was not a good thing.

Victor: "Birthright Citizenship - He wants to eliminate birthright citizenship to ILLEGAL immigrants. What's wrong with that? If you haven't noticed anchor babies get a free ride."

As olvlzl already pointed out, citizenship is guaranteed to anyone born in the United States by explicit language in the 14th Amendment's very first sentence regardless of the status of their parents.

Further, those who have entered the country illegally have committed a crime that is a misdemeanor at about the level of a traffic violation, for which there are no criminal penalties. And "anchor babies" don't get any more of a free ride than any other babies.

I think opposition to allowing people to come to the U.S. for a better life is one of the most immoral and unethical positions that anyone can hold--it says that purely in virtue of someone's geographic place of birth, they should be condemned to a worse life.

I recommend that those who hold such positions read a few articles by Will Wilkinson, such as his "Questions for Particularists", "Who Matters?", and "Prebuttal on Immigration and Poverty."

Hume's Ghost said...

Both Olvlzl and Jim beat me to it, but I was going to point out that States rights in the context of church/state separation and the conservative movement is dog whistle politics for the notion that 1st Amendment only prevents the creation of a national church.

Regnery's Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution says as much on the cover.

And given the fact that Paul clearly travels in the intellectual circles of neo-confederates, reconstructionists and such it makes his comment suspicious.

Einzige said...

I am amazed at the amount of sense that olvlzl just made!

Victor, if your problem is with "illegal" immigration, then I wonder if you'd have a similar problem with illegal gun ownership, if the owning of a gun was made illegal tomorrow.

As long as we're giving reading recommendations, I enjoyed this article immensely.

Victor said...

I'm glad we're having this civil discussion guys, but I can't post much since I'm at work. I'll post later tonight. For now, please youtube Ron Paul and learn his reasoning from the man himself. He isn't the typical Republican. He isn't the typical politician. The one thing that all his supporters of his admires is his integrity and honesty. You know where he stands. Check his record. His views seemed kind of out there for me at first, but once I resrarched it then I understood where he comes from.

I shared some of the same concerns you guys expressed here. On some issues I still do. However, notice the common theme in his reasoning... Obey the Constitution (admend it if you need to, but don't ignore it), promote freedom, these are some things we all can agree on.

I will write in more detail after work.

Jim Lippard said...

Ron Paul does seem to take mostly consistent stances and show a lot of integrity, at least by politician standards, but I have been disappointed by a few of his stances which seem designed to mislead.

One, he claims to be in favor of free trade, yet he opposes all free trade agreements and allows himself to be portrayed as an opponent of free trade in order to pander to protectionists. Two, he votes no on most (all?) appropriation bills, but he still puts in earmarks for his own constituents, knowing full well that his "no" vote will not win the day. By putting in those earmarks, he is delivering porkbarrel spending to his district even though he votes against the bills.

If you click the "Ron Paul" label at this blog, you'll see that we've written a fair amount about him, pro and con. (And you'll also see a photo of me with him at his first campaign stop in Phoenix.)

Victor said...

Regarding Birth Right Citizenship, yes Ron Paul recognizes that he would need to amend the Constitution to prevent illegal immigrants from gaining citizenship through birthright.

Ron Paul (RP) has often said that he believes illegal immigrants have been the scapegoats because of our failing economy. However, he also recognizes the fact that we can't keep up this welfare state for illegal immigrants.

There's a moral question with taxing citizens and giving that money to illegal immigrants through welfare programs. Yes, I understand that illegal immigrants do pay some taxes and they don't get to use all the benefits of a citizen, but they still net a positive in receiving more benefits than their fair share.

RP has often said that if we had a more prosperous economy we could contemplate being so generous, however, our economy is on the brink of disaster right now. The Dollar is falling and inflation is high. The Dollar has lost 40% of it's value as compared to the Euro and the Canadian dollar in the last 5 years. I estimate real inflation to be greater than 6%-10%. This is all the result of politicians spending us into debt through needless war, the welfare state, and the growth of the beaucratic govt.

Bottom line. We can't afford it and we have to cut our spending. First thing that needs to go is welfare to non-citizens.

Victor said...

""Why stop at people who break that law? Why not extend that to people who break other laws, including white collar criminals? You're a lot more likely to be ripped off or hurt by a white collar criminal than an illegal immigrant.""

I agree, that white collar crimes and the collusion of our govt with corps like Halliburton and all the other wasteful spending in Iraq is significant. I never said that we should tolerate that. You can't justify an illegal activity by saying that other illegal activities are occuring elsewhere.

""In actual effect, it's just another means of exploiting anti-Latino bigotry.""

I think any rational person reading any of my comments can say I never said anything to indicate I am a bigot. You are the one who brought up race. Nowhere did I even mention latinos. I said "illegal immigrants." My problem with illegal immigrants isn't because of their race... it's because they pay less taxes then a citizen, and get more than their fair share of govt assistance.

Why don't you argue for more legal immigration? That's a debate that is actually credible. I think it's incredibly unfair that our Federal Govt have in all intents and purposes invited illegal immigrants into our country and now they are all making these noises about passing these laws to make their life difficult here. Yes, I do think it's unfair. We should have never allowed illegal activity to occur. If we wanted more workers, we could have had worker visa programs or even allowed more immigrants into the country. The key point is that the rule of law isn't ignored.

Victor said...

Jim Lippard said "I think opposition to allowing people to come to the U.S. for a better life is one of the most immoral and unethical positions that anyone can hold--it says that purely in virtue of someone's geographic place of birth, they should be condemned to a worse life."

That's an interesting argument and it's a very noble position. See my other post regarding illegal immigration. Bottom line.. we can't afford to subsidize illegal immigrants. If they paid their fair share of taxes then I wouldn't have much of a problem. Our economy is on the brink of disaster. Inflation is through the roof, the dollar is crashing, the housing bubble is crashing. We have $7 trillion in debt and $70 trillion in future obligations.

Victor said...

Regarding the Free Trade Agreements.

The reason RP doesn't support these agreements is because it's actually managed trade. Just like how the Patriot Act is not what it's name purports to be, the Free Trade Agreements is just nation managed trades. They are just bigger government.. even bigger than the federal govt.. meaning the people have even less control over what happens.

Victor said...

To me this isn't the left vs the right, or me rooting for my team or political party.

This is about me trying to find the truth. If you want to give yourself the opportunity to see things from all sides before making a choice check out videos of Ron Paul explaining his position. Here's one video that covers a lot of the issues:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

If you wish to continue to attack him by saying things like white supremacist support him or he's crazy.. then.. i feel sorry for our country.. I support him and I'm asian and I don't consider myself crazy... Am I an idiot? Am I stupid? I consider myself very well informed on economics and the current issues. I saw through the lies of the housing bubble, I saw through the lies of the "contained" subprime, I saw through the lies of inflation being at 0.8% (used to cal gdp), I see through the lies of the fed reserve and I know a recession is inevitable, and I see through the lies in Iraq.

I'm not stupid. I make a lot of money off investing in our fixed financial market. If RP wins, I gain freedom and a more prosperous nation, but I lose the fixed game of a financial system we have. I would like to think I care more about the welfare of all then my personal wealth.

Bottom line is RP support him because we believe in freedom and we believe in self-responsibility. We believe the govt shouldn't gather up our tax money and then have the power to be santa claus. No wonder there's lobbyists and corruption. We believe the govt shouldn't create new money out of thin air which causes inflation and destroys the middle class and the poor... I can go on and on, but I'm not... Check out youtube to find out more.

oh.. and rp explained the earmark issue in one of those videos.

Jim Lippard said...

Victor: If welfare, not illegal immigration, is the real issue, then address welfare. (BTW, I do think we should greatly increase the availability of legal immigration. It's insane that the entire annual quota of H1B visas was filled in less than a day.) Opposition to "illegal immigrants" almost always really means specifically opposition to Latinos (and Mexicans in particular) coming to America, since they make up the bulk of illegal immigrants.

You say that "First thing that needs to go is welfare to non-citizens." Why is that the first thing that needs to go? Why not a criminal president, a criminal war, corporate welfare, or political pork? I note that Arizona just passed a number of anti-illegal immigrant propositions last year. While some of them were specifically directed at preventing state-level benefits from being given to illegal immigrants, they went far beyond that to attempt to deny them the use of courts. Why on earth would we want to deny any human being in this country access to redress of legal wrongs?