Remember how the Mayor of Birmingham (Larry Langford; D)was praying in sackcloth and ashes for God to reduce the crime rate of his fair city?

Well, it looks like Birmingham might soon be less one alleged criminal already...the Mayor of Birmingham! (don't forget, innocent until proven guilty)

(Hat tip and link:  Pharyngula)

Welcome to Sunday morning prostration.

(which, as Vala observed, is not nearly as much fun as it sounds)

Hallowed are the Ori!

Hallowed are the Ori!

Hallowed are the Ori (Bemidji is still an Ori strong-hold)

Hallowed are the Ori! (Jesus still hates taxes)

And speaking of the Ori...go take a look at this guy, and tell me he isn't one of their priors.  AllI can say is, we're in trouble when a man named Kahn allignes hiself with enemies of earth. 

Kah-h-h-hn!!!!!!  LOL

[Update:  I think Ben Stein is angling for a priorship]

(Hat tips:  Pharyngula and Denialism)

Those darned intellectual elite...

Alway putting down the plucky dissenters who challenge the academic "consensus":

"The so called 'intelligentsia' always looks down with a really limitless condescension on anyone who has not been dragged through the obligatory schools and had the necessary knowledge pumped into him. The question has never been: What are the man's abilities? but: What has he learned? To these 'educated' people the biggest empty-head, if he is wrapped in enough diplomas,is worth more than the brightest boy who happens to lack these costly envelopes.And so it was easy for me to imagine how this ' educated ' world would confront me, and in this I erred only in so far as even then I still regarded people as better than in cold reality they for the most part unfortunately are.  As they are, to be sure, the exceptions, as everywhere else, shine all themore brightly. Thereby, however, I learned always to distinguish between the eternal students and the men of real ability."

                                                                       --Adolph Hilter:  Mein Kampf (all quotes from Mein Kampf taken from this link)

"Not the smallest blame for the none too delectable religiousconditions must be borne by those who encumber the religious idea with toomany things of a purely earthly nature and thus often bring it into a totallyunnecessary conflict with so-called exact science. In this victory willalmost always fall to the latter, though perhaps after a hard struggle,and religion will suffer serious damage in the eyes of all those who areunable to raise themselves above a purely superficial knowledge."

                                                                     --Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf

And as for the materialists with the economic solutions based on facts and knowledge...don't even get him started!  That leads to atheism, and even Hitler knows that's not good!

"In proportion as economic life grew to be the dominant mistress of the state, money became the god whom all had to serve and to whom eachman had to bow down. More and more, the gods of heaven were put into the corner as obsolete and outmoded, and in their stead incense was burned tothe idol Mammon. A truly malignant degeneration set in; what made it most malignant was that it began at a time when the nation, in a presumably menacing and critical hour, needed the highest heroic attitude. Germany had to accustom herself to the idea that some day her attempt to secure her daily bread by means of 'peaceful economic labor' would have to be defended by the sword."

(also Adolph Hitler, also Mein Kampf)

And I'd love to hear a conservative debate Hitler on the traitorous nature of the liberal press in war-time:

"The so-called liberal press was actively engaged in digging the grave of the German people and the German Reich."

                                      (also Adolph Hitler, also mein Kampf)

I'm sure they would have a very nice counter-argument for how opposition to ill-concieved millitarism is a primary function of the press, a national duty, really to preserve a nation's honor and treasure.  THEY'D give old Hitler what-for!

But they'd probably agree with him about the horrors of "safe sex". (link about the inventor of the latex condom)

"Particularly with regard to syphilis, the attitude of the leadership of the nation and the state can only be designated as total capitulation.To fight it seriously, they would have had to take somewhat broader measures than was actually the case. The invention of a remedy of questionable characterand its commercial exploitation can no longer help much against this plague.Here again it was only the fight against causes that mattered and not the elimination of the symptoms. The cause lies, primarily, in our prostitution of love. Even if its result were not this frightful plague, it would nevertheless be profoundly injurious to man, since the moral devastations which accompany this degeneracy suffice to destroy a people slowly but surely. This Jewification of our spiritual life and mammonization of our mating instinct will sooner or later destroy our entire offspring, for the powerful children of a natural emotion will be replaced by the miserable creatures of financial expediency which is becoming more and more the basis and sole prerequisite of our marriages.Love finds its outlet elsewhere."

(Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf)

Feeling a little down after so much time with no new "The Show"s with Ze Frank?

My friend Eric (who mostly limits his comments to e-mail) sent me a link to a new important news source:

Now, there is no excuse for being ignorant about current events.  You've got the Daily Show, and "Unlce Jay"...how can you lose?

Volume I:

Chapter 1:  Life story, lots of whining and bragging about how tough and smart his dad was, and how tough and smart he was.

Chapter 2:  Says that as a Christian, he had a hard time accepting anti-Sematism, but then started to read the works of REAL CHRISTIANS ™ and  came to understand that it was his Christian duty to oppose the Jews and their Marxist plot to destroy humanity.  He also says he  figured out that the secular Jews were only pretending to oppose the Zionist Jews and they were all actually in cahoots together.

Chapter 3:  He says reason Germany was great was because there were mostly just Germans there, the reason Austria was having so much trouble was because of cultural pluralism and liberal acceptance of other people’s and cultures and languages.  Germans should have been running things in the German language, and all other ethnic groups should have been educated into a German identity and required to conform to German norms.

Also, it was a bad idea to let everyone vote.  Representative government is a big joke, because everyone gets to talk.  In a representative government, great men are always burdened by what most of the people want.  Real leaders can’t really express themselves fully with the great mass holding them back.

The Liberal Press fools people into thinking representative government is good, when it is really just a way to avoid personal responsibility.

The Pan-German movement failed because it tried to defeat representative democracy from within, when it should have been trying to destroy it at it’s foundations.  Also, it tried to win over the middle class when it should have exploited the Proletariat.

The Christian Social Movement was successful because it properly exploited the lower class,  and won over the Catholic Church.

Chapter IV:

He says that God has created nature such that it is essential for the survival of a group to have numerous offspring.  Any attempt to limit the number of births is a crime against God and nature.  God has shown us through his creation that the strong produce many offspring, and then they over-run the resources, and have to struggle with other groups for resources.    Eternal struggle is God’s way of increasing the human race.  Attempts to try to help the unfit survive, attempts to manage resources for the future, or to limit population within the bounds of resources will end in the extinction of “our” race.  Also, it is an unpious attempt to thwart the will of God.

Refers to a person who interferes with God’s plan as a”dear little ape of an almighty father”.  In other words, such a person thinks he’s an ape and he thinks he’s God all at once.

The German policy of “internal colonization”…that is, encouraging German people to move to other areas of Germany to provide labor for agriculture and to shore up ethnic German presence in areas dominated by other ethnic groups is short-sighted, because it implies that Germany can secure its survival through work and not through conquest.  Other European countries make the mistake of creating far-flung empires around the world which are difficult to maintain, and expend too much effort for the gain they provide.  If would be more efficient to expand German territory to neighboring countries.  Expresses admiration for America's position as having enough land-mass to expolite for quite some time and grow strong before having to join the struggle.  Notes that America had no need of colonies, because they could efficiently expand into their own land mass.

He says that a leader should embody the religious values of his people.  If he can't do that, he should be a religious reformer. 

Chapter V:  Contempt for pacifism.  Contempt for international commerce.  Contempt for social doctrine stressing pacifism.  Expresses happiness about the Boer War, because it is a “heroic struggle”.  Describes relative peace as “morbid decedance”.  Favores isolationism and expansionism.

Expresses joy at the outbreak of WWI because now Germany could (in his view)fight for its existence without limiting its consumption to the limits of its borders, or gaining the difference through trade.  Celebrates the end to peace efforts  as salvation for the German people.

“And if this struggle should bring us victory our people will again rank foremost among the great nations. Only then could the German Empire assert itself as the mighty champion of peace, without the necessity of restricting the daily bread of its children for the sake of maintaining the peace.”

Describes his transformation into a battle-hardened soldier, and expresses his contempt for “politicians” who were talking about peace, and “the press” who were, in his mind, dampening the citizens zeal for war.

“Shortly after our first series of victories a certain section of the Press already began to throw cold water, drip by drip, on the enthusiasm of the public. At first this was not obvious to many people. It was done under the mask of good intentions and a spirit of anxious care…Instead of catching these fellows by their long ears and dragging them to some ditch and looping a cord around their necks, so that the victorious enthusiasm of the nation should no longer offend the aesthetic sensibilities of these knights of the pen, a general Press campaign was now allowed to go on against what was called ‘unbecoming’ and ‘undignified’ forms of victorious celebration.”

Expresses contempt for “Marxist” (Jewish) intellectuals who had been preaching the liberal ideas to people.  Rejoices that they had to retreat in fear at the uprising in national pride.  Laments that they were not rooted out and killed while public sentiment would have allowed it.

He advances the idea that the only way to completely eliminate a world view (in this case, what he describes as the Jewish Marxism; pacifism, population control, resource management, commerce, diplomacy) is to kill every last person who adheres to the world-view.

But in order for it to work it has to: 1) have a spiritual and moral basis to get the support of the people (already established earlier that the moral basis should be the prevailing religion of the people, and the most fundimental doctrinal foundation should be stricktly adhered to). 2) advance a positive message of self-defense and talking about what is being preserved more than what is being destroyed.  People need to know what they are fighting against, but they should be kept more aware of what they are fighting for. 3) the movement to eradicate the world-view must be absolutely consistent, and there must be NO ideological compromise with the enemy, no room for moral confusion, no grey area, and no hesitancy.  There must never be a show of weakness, indecision, or error.

Theobromophile has asked me for some links illustrating the “Neo-Nazi” support that cause me to cast a jaundiced eye toward the possibility of a Ron Paul presidency.

As Reason magazine points out, it’s a little weird that numerous racist statements appeared in Ron Paul’s newsletter, with his name on them, and yet he seems to have been unaware of the content of his newsletters, and unaware of who wrote them.  You don't find a lot of strenuous opposition to Ron Paul there - but occasionally you can find an opinion piece there or two with some tepid dithering about how much the Neo-nazis love Ron Paul, or the theocrats, or racist statements appearing under his name in his publication that he controls.

For instance Ron Paul on Dr. King Then vs. Now

But, even if you accept his assertions that he isn’t a racist, didn’t write the racist literature, and doesn’t know who wrote it…that’s not a ringing qualification for the presidency…then again, given the Reagan presidency, maybe it IS.  Maybe “I didn’t know what was happening on my watch, and I don’t know who did what, and I can’t tell you who is responsible” is a presidential trait. (Some publications have alluded, based on confidential sources that the writer of the racist statements was Lew Rockwell, whose online website Ron Paul has written numerous articles for…and who WAS Ron Paul’s ghostwriter for a time).

There’s no way to know as long as Ron Paul doesn’t know who did it, or won’t say.  Generally, an overview of the comments found on the internet has been a flurry of fingers all pointing different directions.  Nobody who is in a position to know who wrote a number of racist statements over a period of years under Ron Paul’s name seems to want to go on record as saying who did it.  At lease, not that I’ve been able to find.  And who can blame them? Given the calumny and invective directed against anyone who says anything about it?

But even though racist statements appearing on his newsletter, under his name, going without retraction or correction would be sufficient to nail a liberal…the assertion that he didn’t know what was going on, and didn’t know who did it, seems to be enough for his supporters. On maybe it’s just that the people who would care haven’t given it a lot of thought because they don’t think he’ll actually win, they just want him to keep pounding away at whatever issues specifically affect them.

If you read the comments thread here, you can see that the Nazis expect Ron to do it for them.  He has publicly spoken on almost all of their issues, and come out smelling great to them.  The only thing he has NOT come out and said is the magic 14 words.

Orcinus also covers some of the extra curricular activities of Randy Gray, Ron Paul's Midland County coordinator.  You can see a chummy picture of Ron with him there too.  Randy Gray doesn't seem to mind that Ron Paul hasn't said the 14 words out loud in public.  He's all in.

The promotion of Ron Paul by David Duke don’t seem to get any detraction among his supporters, even with authentic pictures of Old Duke as a young man in a Nazi uniform, and his close personal friendship with George Lincoln Rockwell, the founder of the American Nazi party.

It’s difficult to impress conservatives with references to the “codes” employed by Ron Paul to convince White Nationalists to extend to him this kind of ardent support:

After all, many people who oppose “multi-culturalism” have a laundry list of reasons that have nothing explicitly to do with “race”.

After all, going after the Federal Reserve and the banking system is a favorite of conservatives of all stripes…it’s just the Nazis and neo-confederates who think he really means “The Jewish Monetary Conspiracy”.

And being against our involvement in the U.N. doesn’t necessarily mean that he believes that it is secretly run by a Zionist conspiracy like the Nazis do.  So when he talks against the “New World Order” the fact that THEY think they know what he means is not proof that he means it.

And wanting our government to stop supporting Israel isn’t inherently anti-semitic, lots of people what to stop supporting Israel and have a long list of reasons they can give that doesn’t include the fact that Israel is full of Jews.

And refusing to return the Nazi money (he hasn’t yet, has he?) or donate it to some good cause certainly doesn’t seem like the action of a person who wouldn’t be their man on issues important to him, but it can be explained away if you want to explain it away.

Come on, that’s WHY they call it “code” and “pandering”…because you CAN’T pin a specific attitude on someone with legalistic precision.

But don’t take it from me (following quote from Orcinus):

If you doubt that Paul has the support of our proto-fascists, don't take my word for it -- take theirs. This endorsement, for example, recently appeared on national KKK leader David Duke's website. And I'll let an anonymous commenter from Stormfront, the far right's favorite Web watering hole, have the final word:

Anyone who doesn't vote for Paul on this site is an assclown. Sure he doesn't come right out and say he is a WN [white nationalist], who cares! He promotes agendas and ideas that allow Nationalism to flourish. If we "get there" without having to raise hell, who cares; aslong as we finally get what we want. I don't understand why some people do not support this man, Hitler is dead, and we shall probably never see another man like him.

Pat Buchanan's book "Where the Right Went Wrong" is a prime example of getting the point across without having the book banned for anti semitism. The chapters about the war in Iraq sound like a BarMitzvah, but he doesn't have to put the Star of David next to each name for us to know what he means. We are running out of options at this point, and I will take someone is 90% with us versus any of the other choices.

Not to mention if Paul makes a serious run, he legitimizes White Nationalism and Stormfront, for God's sake David Duke is behind this guy!

After all, Hillary’s claim that she can take gobs of corporate money and never give them preference makes me chuckle a wry, mirthless chuckle.  Why should I feel any different about a guy who does not repudiate the ardent support of neo-nazis?

Her simultaneous pandering to the looniest left of the party and to already over-blown corporate interests is CODE for “I’ll keep running things the same way we ran things before” which to me means that and in eight or twelve years we’ll lose the country to an expansionist Republican government again….and it will be because we pandered half-heartedly to the loony left, without fixing the over-reaching by the right…and the middle where all the work is done and where all the bills are paid gets left out in the cold again.

Yeah, I realize that this is circumstantial evidence, and that it wouldn’t convict someone in a court of law, but a person can’t deny that it seems a little cavalier to shrug and say, as I have heard people say “Nazis have a right to express their opinions too.”

Well…of COURSE they do, and I’m glad.  Otherwise, how would we know what they’re up to?  And when they say “This guy stands for almost everything we want”…I get nervous and think “I’m pretty sure that things that give Nazis hope are not things I want in a candidate.”

But as one commenter said here: http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/026647.php

So maybe George F. and Lew Rockwell are "anti-state" collectivists, just as Sam Francis, Neo-Confederates and Neo-Nazis are anti-government statists. So what? They are still not individualists, and therefor NO FRIEND OF MINE, despite George F.'s crude "Jedi Mind Tricks" to prove otherwise.

Now are George F. or Lew Rockwell racist or bigots or just pretending to be racist in order to make allies with racists to achieve a political end? Does it matter?

Is Ron Paul accepting the endorsements and money and promotion of Nazis and neo-confederates and the like without repudiation because he agrees with them?  Or because they will support him in his candidacy, and he needs all the support he can get?  Does it matter?

Does Hillary Clinton unapologetically dismiss her huge corporate contributions as not important because she is a corporatist, or merely needs their help to win?  Does it matter?

So anyway, Theo, you asked for my reasons and I’ve given them.  You have no doubt heard all of this before, and you obviously don’t interpret it as I do, but I guess that’s the way our country works.

I’m glad that Ron Paul can run for president, and get in the debate, and hold the ideas up for scrutiny.  And I’m glad that most people look, and go;  “Oh good lord” and  look for just about anyone else.

At least for now.

When you're a State Representative, and you have to apologize for calling single moms "sluts" in public...you just might be a Republican.

LOL!  I like that he apologized publicly with this little number:

"The derogatory term I used was offensive and inappropriate, and I would like to apologize for using it," the Colorado Springs Republican said in a statement. "Because of my unfortunate choice of language, the message that I was trying to get across about personal responsibility and parental responsibility has been overshadowed.

"I certainly regret using the term I did," he said.

Of course, having spent about the last twenty-five years listening to politicians, and knowing the Republican philosophy as I do...

I can translate it into normal person language quite easily:

"I'm sorry I used words to accuratly represent what I really think.  It's unfortunate that I can no longer pawn off my hostility to harm-reduction efforts as frienliness toward "personal responsibility".  People will always be able to point to this quote and show that my real attitude is one of enjoying seeing women and their children suffer as retribution for their lack of submissivness to the patriarchy."

You know, it just seems like those Muslim fundies have it easier.  You don't see THEM having to bow and scrape and apologize...no, the WOMEN do all of that, when they appear in court.

Gee, it just sort of makes you long for the ideal, Republican America, doesn't it?  Where Abortion (and birth control as soon as they can swing it)is illegal, and all of the government aid is regulated by "Faith-based initiatives" that see things the way old Larry Liston does.  Then, he could call them sluts, and who would care?  Nobody, that's who.  Because if there was one thing Jesus would never have stood for...it was an unwed teenaged mother.

And first prize in the "just not gettin' it" catagory goes to...

Michele "jerk for Jesus" Bachman

Who brags about how great Minnesota is because of all the people working long hours and multiple jobs.

Just keep doing what your doing Michele, and pretty soon, by your standards, America will be the greatest country in the world!

You still have a lot to do, though.  I know if you keep at it and don't give up, some day our seven-year-olds can acheive the dream or working 12 -hour shifts like their lucky Bangladeshi counterparts today!

(Hat Tip: Pharyngula)

So Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to line up with Biblical priciples?

At least he's honest.

Sure he's the Republican front-runner and everything but I'm not worried...

...but mostly that's because I live a mere eight-our drive from the Canadian border.

Less if I don't like my car too much.

And I don't think I'll have to rush.  We can get everything packed up and have a leisurly drive into the neighboring country long before they run out of homosexuals and witches.

(Hat Tip: Pharyngula)

Best. Ron Paul. Description. Ever.

" I'm also not a particular fan of Ron Paul, who mostly seems to be a Rorschach test for the politically disaffected."

I think we might have a bit of a communication issue with the right.

Lewedandlascivious posts a link to this article citing it as an example of the"propagandist" bias of the “Liberal media”.

So the article is in a San Francisco based paper… but it is generally a glowing report of Bush’s political successes this past year, and notes that the Democrats are generally ineffective.

It’s neutral in the advisability of Bush’s policies, but portrays him as a strong leader who is politically effective.

It portrays Dems. As a bunch of dumb-asses who can’t seem to get their shit together.

It seems to me to perfectly reflect reality.

I’m a little stumped.

Oh no you don't, Media.

You don't get to spend the whole LAST presidential election saying that Kerry would be a bad president because he's a stiff, due to his complete LACK of a sense of humor, and because his penchant for precisely answering the question can be percieved as "waffeling"...

...and then turn around and say Huckabee isn't "Presidential" because he's hilarious and has a shoot-from-the hip style.

Pile on one for being academic and humerless, and then turn around and pile on another because he has a quick come-back for almost everything?  Sheesh.

Huckabee wouldn't make a terrible president because he is funny, quick-witted, charming, and takes rhetorical risks.

Huckabee would make a terrible president because his approach to the world is trapped in the middle ages, because he thinks that he has a little man trapped in a book who will give him all the answers, and because he thinks that Chuck Norris (who, despite being a terrible actor, and a horrible judge of politics, is STILL the guy who I looked up to as a young Karateka) is a cherry political endorcement. 

Guess they didn't want to hand the election to Hillary wrapped up in a bow.

Sucks to be you.

Still, being a Republican fall-guy has it's upside.

Look at Ollie North.  Worked out OK for him.

Just hang in there one more year, and all that can be yours!

Sing it Snidey!

I was just watching a History Channel special on China yesterday.  I had to laugh out loud when a Chinese Communist Party Official was shown talking about certain economic woes in his province.  He said:

"What we need is some sort of Social Security System".

I had to pause the DVR because I was laughing so hard.

See?  The conservatives are right!  Social Security IS communist! If it weren't Communist, the Communists wouldn't be thinking about maybe someday getting around to having it!

Now, you HAVE to respect his commitment to libertarian ideals.  Fighting for the right to lie to the public in his quest to destroy public education.  THAT’S commitment.  And hey the genius is, that if you destroy public education, it will be sooooo much easier to lie!  Oh yeah.  He's crazy all right, crazy like a fox.

How DID Ron Paul manage to get ahold of this guy?

[UPDATE:  But maybe I'm being unfair.  Maybe I should let Paul Dorr tell you himself.]

I know I said I was done with Ron Paul, but this has been bugging me ever since I read it.

To solve the problem of frivolous lawsuits, which admittedly do happen, Ron Paul propses that we simply have people insure THEMSELVES against malpractice by their doctors.

That way, the doctors don't get sued and get to keep their money, the insurance companies get more business and more money, people harmed by doctors get compensated eventually after they sue the insurance company to get the money out of them after the insurance company denies the claim based on trumped-up excuses.  Everyone wins except the trial lawyers, who get a career set-back after they have to change specialties from suing doctors to suing claims-denying insurance companies.

Sure...except those who can't afford all the insurance premiums that are already required to just live in our society.  They get screwed some more.

Plus, how does this serve the much-vaunted Libertarian value of personal responsibility?  I have to pay money to insure myself so that someone else doesn't have to pay for their mistakes?

Pardon me, but that's F$%#!ed up.

You know what would help doctors out a lot?  Paying more attention to their patients, listening to them when they describe their symptoms, and not dismissing their concerns about specific health problems out of arrogance.  Also, hospitals could help by better managing their staff and not exhausting them with Bataan death-march shifts that lead to fatigue errors.

One of the things I've noticed is an increased reliance on Hospitalists.  Would hospitals and doctors be motivated to innovate improvements in patient care if accidents and mistakes just became the patient's problem?  Having a doctor around who is familiar with all aspects of a patient's care (where patients might have more than one or two conditions that need to be considered in care), as well as making sure that hospital procedures and policies are followed will go a long way to preventing medical malpractice and the suits that go with them.  Who knows what other improvements hospitals and doctors can make to help them provide more consistantly better care?

When I think about all the stuff that we've gone through in our lives due to negligence and summary judgements of medical professionals not paying attention to their patients, being dismissive and arrogant, not following hospital procedures, etc, it makes me just MAD that someone would suggest that we should have to pay out of our own pockets to protect other people and institutions from their own mistakes.

The Preamble as I see it:

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

From what I can tell, this is the Preamble as Ron Paul sees it:

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, (forming a more perfect union involves too many activities that could infringe on state’s rights) establish justice, (that’s a state issue) insure domestic tranquility, (too much infringement when you try this)provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare,  (Collectivism!!)and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity (to not have any significant responsibilities as citizens), do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

I've read pages and pages and pages of Ron Paul, now.  I've read pages and pages and pages written by his supporters, and by his detractors.

I've done what Mark asked and seriously considered Ron Paul for President.

I've read about how politicians should do what the Pope says, because he's just saying what God says, and how the church should rule America.  Pretty much, if you just read what Ron Paul himself has written about religion and government, and then go read what Gary North and R.J. Rushdoony have written about it, you'll pretty much see why the theocrats LOVE him to peices.

I've read about how rectifying specific injustices against particular groups so that they can exercise their full rights as citizens is descrimination against those who already exercise their full rights...and anyway it's a states issue if they want to guarantee human rights to their citizens or not. 

Or even ammend the Constitution to deny historic conditions of citizenship as a matter of convenience.

I've read how he describes the Constitutional investment of interpretation of the constitution, as well as the concept that Equity in the Law is invested in the Federal Courts as recent inventions. (and as an aside supports the rights of states to regulate private sexual activity)

I've read about how people getting together with others who have similar issues and trying to solve them together is "collectivism", and bad. (see pretty much any of the above cited articles).

And I've decided that I'd sooner choke on moose vomit than vote for Ron Paul, who goes beyond being "anti-Socialist" to just being plain anti-social.  And though his public face is much more palitable than the views of his most ardent and vocal supporters...it would be, wouldn't it?  He's the politician who represents the constituancy after all.  He'll put the nicest face on it.

So, Ron Paul is out, and Hillary is out.  And All three Republicans who raised their hands when asked the question about creationism are out.  Romny's out because he's just too damned smug.  Time to move on.

“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals . . . By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racists . . . we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.”

                          --Ron Paul

OK...so...when you say "Not all black people are a certain way, and it's wrong for someone to judge them due to their race.  Let's come up with some stratagies that disinsent people from barring people from the opportunities of our society based on race."

What we are actually saying, according to Ron Paul, is that all black people are a certain way, and must be treated all alike.

So, Ron Paul's solution is to remove all disincentives for judging people on race.  Stop keeping track of statistics that show how people are barred from the opportunities of our society based on race, and the problem will just disappear.

Interesting.  If you stop reporting on a problem, it will go away.  The attempt at solution contains the root of the problem...it's all a matter of perception you see...what is real is unreal.  The idea that we can all exsist as individuals in society on our own terms rather than having to conform to some sort of culturally-enforced norm (diversity) is actually the cause of racism and collectivism.  You see what you see only because you create the image with your eye.

gosh.

Who knew Ron Paul was a Zen Master?

And now, I suppose he will go on to prove that black is white and get killed at the next pedestrian crossing (apologies to Douglas Adams)

Federal Money going to religious group to destroy science?

The fact that he can even TRY this shows you how far above the law theocrats think they are, and how much apathy they expect from the rest of us.

How much audacity does this take?

(Double Hat Tip: Pharyngula and The Austringer)

Here is an extensive quote of the relevant information of our common law regarding use of deadly force in self defense.  It is from This document.

Obviously, this doesn't constitute legal advice from me, as I'm not a lawyer, and am merely quoting a document.

Self-defense

·    Most important of the justifications.

·    Nothing controversial about self-defense itself, but it comes up in controversial and sensitive contexts.

A victim can use non-deadly force any time that victim reasonably believes that force is about to be used on him.

Common Law Elements for Use of Deadly Force in Self-defense

(1) unlawful threatener, i.e. aggressor is wrongdoer and you are innocent agent;

(2) honest and reasonabe belief that you are subject to imminent harm, (reasonable because you need to be innocent and if not reasonable then negligent; imminent because if not you have a chance to get away. Subjective approach would allow everyone to claim justification at all times.);

(3) force used must be proportionate (because the balance of evils must be positive)

(4) Actor is not the original aggressor.

Classic common law says if you are initial provoker you lose self-defense unless you communicate withdrawal.

(5) No retreat requirement in most jurisdictions.

Where retreat requirement exists it only holds if actor knows of a place to which he could retreat in complete safety.

MPC Elements for Use of Deadly Force in Self-defense

(1) Force is immediately necessary to protect against unlawful force by another on the present occassion.

(2) Unlawful force threated is death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or rape.

(3) Actor did not initially provoke for the purpose of using deadly force.

If you provoked with the use of non-deadly force and the other party responds with deadly force, MPC allows justified use of deadly force. (Still liable for initial battery.)

(4) Duty to retreat if actor knows he can avoid the need to use deadly force with complete safety to himself.  Minority Rule.  Three exceptions: don’t have to retreat from home, or if victim of rape or robbery, or if you’re a cop.

(5) Belief must be honest.

(6) Estimate of using force must not be negligent or reckless, if it is guilty of reckless or negligent crime.

Texas version of the Castle Law (copied from here):

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
 AN ACT
 relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.
        BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
        SECTION 1.  Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding 
 Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:
              (4)  "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section 
 30.01.
              (5)  "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 
 30.01.
        SECTION 2.  Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending 
 Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as 
 follows:
        (a)  Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is 
 justified in using force against another when and to the degree the 
 actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary 
 to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted 
 use of unlawful force.  The actor's belief that the force was 
 immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed 
 to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the 
 person against whom the force was used:
              (1)  unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter 
 unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business 
 or employment;
              (2)  unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove 
 unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or 
 place of business or employment; or
              (3)  was committing or attempting to commit aggravated 
 kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, 
 robbery, or aggravated robbery.
        (e)  A person who has a right to be present at the location 
 where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against 
 whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity 
 at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before 
 using force as described by this section.
        (f)  For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether 
 an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the 
 use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider 
 whether the actor failed to retreat.
        SECTION 3.  Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as 
 follows:
        Sec. 9.32.  DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.  (a)  A person 
 is justified in using deadly force against another:
              (1)  if the actor [he] would be justified in using force 
 against the other under Section 9.31; and
              (2)  [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation 
 would not have retreated; and 
              [(3)]  when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably 
 believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
                    (A)  to protect the actor [himself] against the 
 other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
                    (B)  to prevent the other's imminent commission of 
 aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual 
 assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
        (b)  The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the 
 deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that 
 subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor knew or had 
 reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was 
 used:
              (1)  unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter 
 unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business 
 or employment;
              (2)  unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove 
 unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or 
 place of business or employment of the actor; or
              (3)  was committing or attempting to commit an offense 
 described by Subsection (a)(2)(B) [The requirement imposed by 
 Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against 
 a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense 
 of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].
        (c)  A person who has a right to be present at the location 
 where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person 
 against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in 
 criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not 
 required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this 
 section.
        (d)  For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining 
 whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed 
 that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not 
 consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
        SECTION 4.  Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies 
 Code, is amended to read as follows:
        Sec. 83.001.  AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.  It is an affirmative 
 defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death 
 that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was 
 justified in using force or deadly force under Subchapter C, 
 Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code[, against a person who at the 
 time of the use of force was committing an offense of unlawful entry 
 in the habitation of the defendant].
        SECTION 5.  Chapter 83, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is 
 amended by adding Section 83.002 to read as follows:
        Sec. 83.002.  COURT COSTS, ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND OTHER 
 EXPENSES.  A defendant who prevails in asserting the affirmative 
 defense described by Section 83.001 may recover from the plaintiff 
 all court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, earned income that was 
 lost as a result of the suit, and other reasonable expenses.
        SECTION 6.  (a)  Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as 
 amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after 
 the effective date of this Act.  An offense committed before the 
 effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the 
 offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for 
 this purpose.  For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is 
 committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of 
 the offense occurs before the effective date.
        (b)  Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as 
 amended by this Act, and Section 83.002, Civil Practice and 
 Remedies Code, as added by this Act, apply only to a cause of action 
 that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act.  An action 
 that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by 
 the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is 
 continued in effect for that purpose.
        SECTION 7.  This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

Townhall.com panics.

Aaleena has commentary.