Topic: Ron Paul
Ron Paul vs. Flat Earthers (Again) Once the superficial layers of ad hominem and guilt-by-association have been melted, all becomes clear: Ron Paul and his supporters are being fraudulently smeared simply because their constitutional message of liberty, prosperity, and peace are impossible to defeat.by Dan Alba
(Libertarian)
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
The truth needs nothing more than its own merit to protect it from scrutiny.
Which helps to explain why the merits are usually ignored by the enemies of truth, in favor more indirect, disingenuous, and fraudulent means of battle, such as character assassination.
For the first few months after Ron Paul announced his candidacy, corporate media and state-suckling pundits did what they could to downplay his impact and success, using the typical arsenal of omission, misinformation, and fallacy. But once the ineffectiveness of their tactics became apparent, the game slightly changed.
When the enemies of truth fail to discredit, they get desperate. In desperation, they disarm themselves and are exposed as frauds.
Discredit: Shortly before and after Ron Paul announced his candidacy, they said his views are out of touch with the Republican Party and the American People. Debunk: But then we found that he's arguably the most conservative and Republican Member of Congress, and by far, the most popular candidate online — winning almost every post-debate poll and boasting more MeetUp groups than any other candidate.
Discredit: The first major attempt at smearing came during and immediately following the first GOP debate on Fox. The subject was What motivates Arab or Muslim terrorism against US targets? The case study was 9/11. Rudy Giuliani and the neocons offered ideological and Biblical precedents in deciding pertinent foreign policy, while Ron Paul stuck to empirical and authoritative evidence and the rule of law for deliberating such matters. It was basically Divine Mandate dogmatism vs. constitutional pragmatism. Debunk: After comparing the integrity of both sides' cases, the Flat Earthers' assertions were exposed for the threadbare, venture-conquest fantasies they are. Official statements from the CIA, various other official US sources, the alleged 9/11 perpetrators, and the Founding Fathers supported Ron Paul's arguments and thus destroyed those of the Flat Earthers.
Discredit: When he dominated the post-debate polls and his supporters became the majority on many political message boards, blogs, and call-ins, they said it was a coordinated spamming and flooding effort, and that in some cases, Ron Paul's supporters were cheating. Debunk: It was soon revealed that cheating, spamming, and repeat voting — online or over the phone — is practically impossible due to built-in safeguards against such things.
Discredit: "National poll numbers" are brought up during introductions and all throughout interviews as an implicit way of saying that Ron Paul is dead in the water. Debunk: But then those are the same "national polls" that omit his name from the questionaire — the same polls that target people who were registered as Republicans during the latest elections, and who voted "Republican" therein. The field, therefore, is predominantly pro-war, corporatist, and statist in makeup, and the choices are steered accordingly. Not to mention, the polls are conducted over land-line telephones (i.e., minus cell-phones and the Internet). Corporate media and pollsters then call it scientific. Sane or at least objective people might call it self-fulfilling, or simply rigged. Also ignored is the fact that several candidates who went on to win their party's nomination, and eventually the Presidency, had even worse polling numbers than those credited to Ron Paul's campaign.
Discredit: And when the fraudulent nature of national polls is exposed in the slightest, corporate media and state-suckling pundits simply ignore it and omit it from their coverage, in favor of other angles. They question his ability to translate all that online support into votes. He still lacks name-recognition, they say. Debunk: It is then discovered that Ron Paul places in the top-three of more straw polls than does any other candidate, that he owns the best win-loss ratio in said polls, and that his public speeches on the campaign trail gather much larger crowds than do those of the other candidates.
Discredit: When the straw poll success begins to surface, they say nothing, and so omit it, too. They then repeat the slogans, saying that he's not broken "top-tier" status yet, and that his newfound name-recognition and voter turnouts haven't resulted in material support; to that end, they cite statistics like campaign donations and cash-on-hand. Debunk: It is then discovered that the Paul campaign took in over five million dollars in the third quarter; his supporters planned a one-day, online donation drive whereby $4.3 million dollars were raised on the 5th of November; and less than halfway through the fourth quarter, his campaign reported $8.6 million cash-on-hand and boasted ≈20,000 new donors. Suddenly, the Paul campaign seems to have achieved some higher status (according to corporate beltway media standards anyway).
A new and seemingly coordinated wave of desperation
It's now clear that the Ron Paul campaign is "for real," and that his support can not be downplayed with much success. All the talking points and slogans have been exposed as fallacy, while Paul's popularity, coffers, and electability are still growing despite the attempts to stifle them. Blatant smear jobs have surfaced from time to time, but have been easily demolished. It is becoming evident that the Ron Paul campaign has garnered much more support from voters than corporate media and statist propagandists have led their readers and viewers to believe.
And so arises a new front of fraud and fallacy in the attempt to — yet again — discredit and defame the man and his supporters.
Instead of focusing on electability, cash-on-hand, or the "realness" of his support base — and instead of simply peppering his image with a lame smear here and there — they begin to kick it up a notch or three in intensity with more personal, trivial concoctions. At an unprecedented rate and with not yet seen chutzpah, his supporters and their occupations are defamed; his positions are misrepresented and distorted to complete inversion; and any conceivable rumor that could be put in the form of an essay or a "news" segment is concocted and then published and broadcast as if it were all true, relevant, or even newsworthy.
Discredit/Defile: During the first week of November, a story broke about an email-spamming operation being caught using "Ron Paul" in the subject line of each message sent. Thanks to a knee-jerk media reaction, it was implied that Ron Paul's campaign was engaging in a criminal act. The report was initially taken as foregone conclusion, and it was therefore implied by those enterprising columnists that the Paul campaign was guilty. The story was used in conjunction with the "national poll numbers" fallacy to reason-away popular theories that cast Paul's supporters as being so fantastically tech-savvy that they — and only they — could manipulate all the pertinent online data — all the time — in Ron Paul's favor. Debunk: Unfortunately for their already diminishing credibility, however, their sloppily hasty effort at soaking up Ron Paul Internet sunshine was easily undercut by more logical arguments for why the Paul campaign is completely exonerated. To wit: Anyone who engages in email spamming, whether they be pro, anti, or neutral on Ron Paul, would be smart to use the most popular Internet terms in the subject line of their emails — the same sense it makes for those who propagated the current accusation against the Paul campaign in the first place, as their stories will come up on the first page of most Internet searches by virtue of Ron Paul's name being in their subject lines.
Needless to say, the Ron Paul campaign denied any knowledge of, or involvement with, any of it, and zero evidence to the contrary has surfaced.
Discredit/Defile: Another particularly fraudulent smear used to marginalize Dr. No is the one that labels him a threat to the GOP simply because he gets so much support from outside the GOP "base" (i.e., his supporters don't tend to be neocons or other pro-war, statist, or corporatist entities). To support the smear, the talley of Paul campaign contributions categorized by job title are given to show how certain undesirable groups align themselves with the candidate. For example, Google employees contribute more to the Ron Paul campaign than do those of any other company. The enemy of truth then uses an isolated example of a Google business decision as evidence of major support from the "far left." First of all, these are superficial, partisan non-arguments, but for the sake of necessary hoax-busting, I proceed. Debunk: What is missed is that the GOP base has shrunk greatly over the past few years, but apparently, to the pro-neocon GOPers, there's no such thing as a disenfranchised Republican, a libertarian-leaning Republican, a conservative independent, a constitutional Democrat, and so on. But why should a Paul-hater concede the fact that Ron Paul is as likely to draw those people as he does liberals, Democrats, or anarchists? Because it's much easier to concoct a short-term fraud based on fallacy than it is to accept the fact that Ron Paul is doing long-term wonders for the Republican base by bringing more people into the Republican "tent."
Fraudulent is the smear about the support he receives from employees of Google. One particluarly statist pseudo-conservative disinfo agent claims that it shows liberal stripes in the Ron Paul campaign. The author cites Google's corporate behavior, when in fact the donations noted were from individual employees of the company. What else is ignored on purpose is that Internet companies like Google and their employees benefit from Paul's constitutional, conservative, Republican stance against regulation of the Internet. But of course that sequoia was just too well hidden behind the author's freshly-planted row of saplings.
And the smear of his supporters as conspiracists, racists, and the like, is the most fraudulent and sophomorically trivial one of all. It's selective thought-policing and guilt-by-association, when in fact no crime has been committed or even alleged.
Defile: Ron Paul's use of the word neocon is upbraided by a handful of neocons and statist shills as being anti-Jewish: a charge that might be a hoot if it wasn't so low and libelous. It's used in conjunction with the above "fringe support" charge to bolster the implication that he endorses neo-nazis and other "hate groups." Debunk: The charge in itself is threadbare in light of public figures — Jewish and not (because you'll make it an issue anyway, won't you, neocon apologist?) — owning the title, or even bragging about being "neocons." There are people who are not neocons and who are not Jewish, and who have written critically of neocons, but who don't then get the "anti-Jew" treatment from the pro-neocon attack dogs. That, alone, undercuts the vile slur, though a few excellent writers have gone even further in smashing these particularly deep-cutting and bald-faced frauds.
No ideological movement has contributed more to the disregard and partial extinction of the US Constitution over the past couple of decades than have those who call themselves and their fellows neocons. And no man has called out their illicit policies and championed the Constitution more so than has Ron Paul.
Defile: Therefore, it is only natural that neocon think-tanks [sic] such as American Enterprise Institute (AEI) would begin using fallacy and falsehood to paint Ron Paul as a collaborator with his supporters, who are plotting "extreme and violent measures" in order to carry out the "violent overthrow of Congress." Debunk: Ironically, the same reason the AEI author gives for his smear of Ron Paul as a self-styled dictator-slayer is one of the very reasons why AEI is referred to by respected scholars as the American Dictatorship Institute. Q: Whose services have been outsourced to the US government to achieve foreign policy objectives antithetical to the same rule of law Ron Paul so staunchly upholds? A: Among other policy tanks and wonks, AEI.
Defile: And it's only par for the course when career propagandist Glenn "Bibi's bitch" Beck and David "What Constitution?" Horowitz team up to use lies and innuendo to cast Ron Paul's supporters as terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. The fraud conspicuously resembles the one perpetrated by AEI, in how it baselessly paints Paul's peaceful supporters as being violent revolutionaries. Debunk: But Beck and Horowitz were toast from the word go. Their entire smear was based on falsehoods: that Ron Paul's campaign planned the event, and that it was dedicated it to the memory of an anarchist terrorist. Beck also made sure that concerted emphasis was placed on the fact that the fundraising effort, like all others of its kind, was called a "money bomb." For extra Paul-branding effect, Beck's other guest — the great-grandson of WW-monger Winston Churchill, no less — gave a factually bankrupt account of the historic event in question.
Other lame attempts at defiling and discrediting the man and his supporters have been crafted from the same arsenal used to level all aforementioned assaults. All of them have failed to put even a scratch on the Ron Paul campaign. On the contrary, they've only helped to expose the state and corporate shills for whom they are, while drawing more attention to the campaign toward which sane, enquiring minds usually end up gravitating.
Also worth noting is the fact that of all independent traders in gold and silver currency, Liberty Dollar — the one producing coins with the likeness of Ron Paul on them — was raided last week by the FBI and Secret Service. Coincidence? Not likely. But either way, the feds are bound to lose, while the Ron Paul campaign and the champions of sound money and prosperity will likely either prevail unscathed or end up better-off.
What it all means
Self-evident truths need no further defense; they stand on their own. That's why it's usually the messengers who are so feverishly attacked by the enemies of truth. But once the superficial layers of ad hominem and guilt-by-association have been melted, all becomes clear: Ron Paul and his supporters are being fraudulently smeared simply because their constitutional message of liberty, prosperity, and peace are impossible to defeat.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 236 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Dan Alba only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Dan Alba is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Well said... a consise and accurate accounting of the events that have thus far transpired. While the past attempts you've described have been defeated, we must brace ourselves for the more intense reactions yet to come. At the end of this journey will be the anticipated attempt at vote fraud. Many of your readers may be surprised to know that the vote is counted by a little-known private corporation named Voter News Services (VNS) located in New York City. VNS is a major media conglomerate comprised of all the major networks, including Fox and CNN, and also the wire services, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.
All of the vote results tabulated in each county, mainly by computer, are transferred to VNS where they are tabulated in secret and disseminated to the public, who accepts them without question. The computer tabulated votes at the county level leave no paper trail. Only the corporations who program the software to count votes in each state know for sure if the results are fair, or if fraud has indeed been committed. There are no checks and balances. The software is not open to public scrutiny. Neither is VNS.
Created in 1970 as News Election Services (NES), VNS has existed in near total secrecy and may well be the most powerful corporation in the world. Most people who know of their existence incorrectly believe they are little more than a polling organization. The fact is that they have co-opted the vote count in America, despite their claims that the results they disseminate are "unofficial."
Wonderful article. I am a sane adult republican Ron Paul supporter. I guess the fearmongerers are on the run because there is no way they can stop the train now. What they don't understand is this, Americans are tired of the government as a whole. Both parties have failed to do anything meaningful for decades. It seems the only reason goverment exists at all is to pass out contracts to those who donate to your campaign.
We as small individual donors don't want anything! We don't want handouts or special treatment or anything else. All we want is to have America brought back to i'ts core principles, as described by the founders.
Posted By: L. B. Leonardi
Date: 2007-11-21 19:25:26
Posted By: USAF Vet Dan Date: 2007-11-21 17:53:06 Well said... a consise and accurate accounting of the events that have thus far transpired. While the past attempts you've described have been defeated, we must brace ourselves for the more intense reactions yet to come. At the end of this journey will be the anticipated attempt at vote fraud. Many of your readers may be surprised to know that the vote is counted by a little-known private corporation named Voter News Services (VNS) located in New York City. VNS is a major media conglomerate comprised of all the major networks, including Fox and CNN, and also the wire services, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. All of the vote results tabulated in each county, mainly by computer, are transferred to VNS where they are tabulated in secret and disseminated to the public, who accepts them without question. The computer tabulated votes at the county level leave no paper trail. Only the corporations who program the software to count votes in each state know for sure if the results are fair, or if fraud has indeed been committed. There are no checks and balances. The software is not open to public scrutiny. Neither is VNS. Created in 1970 as News Election Services (NES), VNS has existed in near total secrecy and may well be the most powerful corporation in the world. Most people who know of their existence incorrectly believe they are little more than a polling organization. The fact is that they have co-opted the vote count in America, despite their claims that the results they disseminate are "unofficial."
HOW CAN VNS BE STOPPED? THIS INFORMATION, THANKS USAF VET DAN, IS DISTURBING.
The funny things about Ron Paul and his 5th of November campaign donation is how it parallels with the movie V for Vendetta.
"Remember, remember, the Fifth of November, the Gunpowder Treason and Plot. I know of no reason why the Gunpowder Treason should ever be forgot... But what of the man? I know his name was Guy Fawkes and I know, in 1605, he attempted to blow up the Houses of Parliament. But who was he really? What was he like? We are told to remember the idea, not the man, because a man can fail. He can be caught, he can be killed and forgotten, but 400 years later, an idea can still change the world. I've witnessed first hand the power of ideas, I've seen people kill in the name of them, and die defending them... but you cannot kiss an idea, cannot touch it, or hold it... ideas do not bleed, they do not feel pain, they do not love... And it is not an idea that I miss, it is a man... A man that made me remember the Fifth of November. A man that I will never forget."
I can laugh at almost all of the idiotic smears, there is one that has me a little fearful though...The terrorist one is kinda scary considering the House just passed "The Homegrown Terrorist Act" HR-1955 on the 23rd of Oct.
"Last week while the horrific fires were burning up Southern California and every major news network, including cable were providing non-stop coverage, a very dangerous bill to liberty and freedom was passed by 404 members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Called the 'Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007', this bill is perfectly summed up here: [To view ALL Links go to www.newswithviews.com and click on to this article]
"First let's take a look at the definitions of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism as defined in Section 899A of the bill. The definition of violent radicalization uses vague language to define this term of promoting any belief system that the government considers to be an extremist agenda. Since the bill doesn't specifically define what an extremist belief system is, it is entirely up to the interpretation of the government. Considering how much the government has done to destroy the Constitution they could even define Ron Paul supporters as promoting an extremist belief system. Literally, the government according to this definition can define whatever they want as an extremist belief system. Essentially they have defined violent radicalization as thought crime."
Posted By: Jason Zellmer
Date: 2007-11-21 22:30:10
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I truly could not have said it better. Day after day it is sickening to watch the MSM out right lie by calling Ron Paul a isloationist, out of touch, no chance to win, on the fringe, all his supporters are spammers, doesn't register in the polls, etc, etc. I have not seen even one single candidate on either side garner the amount and type of support that Ron Paul has. It amazes me that before even one vote has been cast the MSM has been decided who will win. Yet when a canidate comes along who has the same ideals as our founding fathers he can't win. These are the very same ideals this country was based upon, we were taught in school and the very reason why we all love our country. Why is it that people who talk about freedom, liberty, small government and the Consitution are called crazy. Looking at both sides and you will find people so far removed from those ideals it is truly scary. I still believe there is Hope for our country and so do millions of others. Ron Paul can win and if the Nov. 5th Money Bomb wasn't enough proof of his large support base wait till you see the Dec. 16th Tea Party!
Posted By: James ODonnell
Date: 2007-11-21 23:45:12
Well they have succeded in their "real" goal, which is to take up as much time as possible from RP supporters "defending" what they know is not possible. Like the question,"Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?"
This is a "psy-ops" perfect interruption of more beneficial efforts to promote RP and his campaign, like Dec 16, which has in the last few days "tailed-off" a bit.
Even great sites like LRC have spent too much time on these worthless efforts. These things should be left to the RP campaign staff to respond to those that they think is necessary. So far it has responded only to Mona Charen by open letter.
Forget these idiots and work on things which will actually be of benefit to his campaign like getting him on TV and generating cash for the campaign.
Remember an old Ayn Rand principle, "In any argument [debate] between the rational and the irrational it is ALWAYS the irrational which will win."
This should be helpful: http://www.ncel.w4sp.com/ (National Clean Elections Lawsuit). The page is full of links to sites and organizations that are battling voting fraud.
Posted By: Patrick Holman
Date: 2007-11-23 17:37:42
As a staunch, right wing, conservative Christian republican, I could punch sexist Glenn Beck right in his neocon face. Luckily I'm a pacifist and will refrain from kicking the shill out of him. He and all the other donkey's can BLOWback me.
Hey, it is people like this that are going to make Ron Paul's loss enjoyable.
Ron Paul is so far ahead of his nutty supporters it isn't even funny. I like the guy, really. I just don't like the people who seem to make excuses and conspiracies for everything negative that pops up. Do you notice a lot of other stuff surrounding the other candidates?
Why is Tancredo dismissed so easily without the conspiracy debate as to why his time is so limited or he is discredited? It happens probably more than Dr. Paul.
Ron Paul is a great man, but it is sad to see the cult of personality that has grown around his campaign. He's going to lose and there are going to be a lot of angry people out there crying "conspiracy". You can take that to the bank.
I'll still vote for the guy, but it is hard to when I see so many crazies doing the same thing.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
