The Freedom Bulletin

Photo by Gage Skidmore

Now that Ron Paul is finally considered a legitimate presidential contender in the top tier of candidates, people are naturally looking for any way they can to tear him down. Apparently, the best thing they could find, and the thing that a disturbing number of people are starting to make a big brouhaha about, is several newsletters from the 1980s and 1990s, called the Ron Paul Survival Report, Ron Paul Freedom Report, and Ron Paul Political Report, which contained some arguably racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic comments.

Among the contents of these newsletters were things like “95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal if not entirely criminal,” and “it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist, philandering Martin Luther King,” and “I’ve laid bare the coming race war in our big cities, [and] the federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS.”

Now, I have heard and read things that are more bigoted than anything in these newsletters. The newsletters do not, to my knowledge, actually state anything to the effect of, “black people are inferior to white people.” But the main problem with the Paul-bashing is that Paul consistently denies knowing the content of these newsletters, let alone writing them. Not exactly known for being phony, he has never, as far as I have heard, said anything even remotely racist in public. Or, says his former aide for 12 years, Eric Dondero, has he ever said anything racist in private. Dondero split with Paul because of disagreements about foreign policy and has been very critical of him on his blog, so if he had any bias it would be against Paul.

Plus, Paul’s policy positions – based on the belief that people should have the freedom to live as they please as long as it does not violate the rights of others – are friendly to people of all races, religions, and sexual orientations. Paul believes that the government should treat people equally without regard to the demographic groups to which they belong, and that people should be free to form any relationships that they wish to, without government labels or licenses. As Wes Messamore points out at the Daily Caller, Paul has denounced overzealous law enforcement, mandatory minimum sentences, and their effects on African-Americans, and mentioned his friend, African-American economist Walter Williams, as a possible running mate. When it comes to homophobia, certainly it would make more sense to pick on Republican candidates Rick Santorum (who supports anti-sodomy laws) or Michele Bachmann (whose husband allegedly believes in “curing” gay people of their gayness) than Paul.

As an example of how widespread the anti-Paul bias is, a surprisingly ignorant and illogical CNN blog entry (or at least an ignorant and illogical headline) interprets a book that Paul actually did write, “Freedom Under Seige,” as “criticiz[ing] AIDS patients, minority rights and sexual harassment victims.” In the book, Paul writes that people with AIDS often have AIDS because of their own decisions, and that they do not have the right to force other people to pay for their treatment. This is completely true, and completely consistent with Paul’s libertarian ideology. He also writes that federal laws against sexual harassment are unnecessary because employees are free to quit their jobs. I do not agree with this, but it is completely consistent with Paul’s central belief that the government should be small and allow free markets to solve problems whenever possible. And Paul decries the tendency to create separate sets of rights for different groups, such as racial minorities, children, employees, and the homeless, pointing out that, “White people who organize and expect the same attention as other groups are quickly and viciously condemned as dangerous bigots. Hispanic, black, and Jewish caucuses can exist in the U.S. Congress, but not a white caucus.” Far from “criticizing minority rights,” this statement sums up the very essence of both libertarianism and diversity – the rights of all individuals to be accepted, treated equally, and treated as individuals.

Yet even though there is nothing homophobic, anti-Semitic, or racist about Paul, far too many people speak of him as if he is the leader of the KKK or the National Vanguard or something. Those who declare their support for Paul are treated as if they made an embarrassing faux pas. And as Salon’s Steve Kornacki describes, nearly all of his campaign rivals have made despicable comments about him in recent days, with Bachmann and Mitt Romney saying he will not be allowed to become the GOP nominee, Newt Gingrich saying he might rather vote for President Obama, Santorum saying he would have to take “a lot of antacid” to vote for him, and Jon Huntsman running an ad about him entitled “Unelectable.”

When Kelly Clarkson announced her endorsement of Paul on Twitter, people responded by saying inaccurate, condescending, and just plain rude things like:

• “Now THAT is how you get someone to unfollow you on Twitter…and in your career.”
• “its good that you dont want women to have the right to choose & think ppl should die in the ER”
• “oh my god I’ve never been more disappointed I thought you were smarter wow”
• “It does concern me a little that you support Ron Paul given his hateful views towards Jews…it did kind of rub me the wrong way”

Fellow singer Michelle Branch bravely agreed with Clarkson, and she was met with a storm of similarly obnoxious comments, such as…

• “ron paul is a homophobe! how could you EVER support him? when you used to sell records, you had so many gay fans. #sad.”
• “supporting ron paul means supporting racism and homophobia, you both need to stop.”

It is beyond me how people can find it sad or disappointing that someone endorses a pro-liberty politician. Even if a celebrity endorsed a politician I hated, I wouldn’t personally attack them or insult their intelligence. And, if I disagreed with someone’s opinions, I would criticize those opinions, using logic and reasoning. But I guess that takes more effort than calling someone a homophobe, an anti-Semite, and a racist.

Photo by Gage Skidmore

It looks like former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is going to run for president as a Libertarian. On December 28, he will formally announce that he is quitting the Republican primary and seeking the Libertarian Party nomination.

This isn’t surprising since, sadly, the media and the GOP establishment never really gave Johnson a chance. I don’t know how this will turn out as a strategic decision – the Humble Libertarian, for example, says that it would have been better if he remained a Republican and ran for his state’s open Senate seat – but I know that I really like Gary Johnson and his ideas. The Republican Party, and America, needs more people like him, people who don’t just use the rhetoric of freedom, but truly believe in it. It’s a shame that he was forced to leave the party because no one realized this.

If you missed Ron Paul’s appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, you can watch the whole thing on YouTube or below:

This was one of my favorite Ron Paul public appearances ever. First of all, the audience absolutely loved him, cheering when Leno mentioned Paul during a joke in his opening monologue, giving him a standing ovation when he was introduced, and erupting in applause throughout the interview whenever he said something they liked (which happened often). Additionally, instead of getting only 30 seconds or a minute to answer a question, as he does in debates, Dr. Paul got to elaborate as he saw fit and struck a more conversational tone. He was very candid, sometimes a little controversially so. At one point, Leno asked Paul what he thought of each of the other Republican candidates. Of Bachmann, he said, after a perfectly timed pause, “She doesn’t like Muslims.” Of Santorum, he exclaimed, “Gays and Muslims!”

Dr. Paul got along really well with Leno, who expressed his respect for Paul’s consistency. The second guest, Fear Factor host Joe Rogan, came in wearing a Ron Paul t-shirt and talked about how much he liked Paul almost as much as he talked about his own show!

Newt and Callista Gingrich, by Gage Skidmore

At tonight’s Republican debate in Iowa, all the candidates were asked at one point about their views on marital fidelity and whether it should be a factor in voters’ decisions. This comes shortly after Mitt Romney released an ad touting his 42-year marriage, children, lifelong Mormon faith, and work experience as evidence of his “steadiness and constancy.” New frontrunner Newt Gingrich has been married three times and started an affair with his current wife, Callista, before divorcing his second wife.

All six candidates answered more or less that yes, a candidate’s character does matter, and marital fidelity is an important part of character. That included Gingrich, who agreed with these sentiments, saying, “I’ve made mistakes … I’ve had to go to God for forgiveness.”

The best answer was Ron Paul’s. “If our marriage vows are important,” he asked, “What about our oath of office?” He then proceeded to change the subject to how politicians need to respect the Constitution, which I agree is a much more important topic than the candidates’ personal lives!

But to the extent that candidates’ personal lives should be a topic of discussion, I don’t think that Newt’s is a reason not to vote for him. Gingrich was married to someone whom, apparently, he was no longer in love with, so he decided to leave her and marry the woman he was in love with. Staying married to the same person is perfectly fine if that’s what makes you happy. So is staying single for your entire life, for that matter. All that Gingrich did was left a situation that wasn’t right for him and did what he felt was right for him and would make him happy. Although Newt may not have handled everything perfectly, doing what is right for you, especially when you know people will disapprove, takes courage, and that is not something to look down on.

Photo by Gage Skidmore

The media are finally starting to treat Ron Paul like a legitimate contender for the 2012 Republican nomination. As the Iowa caucuses approach, polls are showing him in the top tier of candidates (and even in first place), and it looks like the perception of him as a candidate who is in the race to gain an audience for his views but has no chance of winning is starting to change. Here is a sampling of recent articles that bring joy to this Ron Paul supporter’s heart:

• Associated Press: GOP outsider Ron Paul gaining traction in Iowa
• Christian Science Monitor: Ron Paul’s strength in Iowa shows it’s too soon to write him off
• Daily Caller: Ron Paul’s 19% in Iowa may indicate a path to the nomination
• Forbes: Ron Paul and Libertarians Can’t Be Discounted
• The Hill: Ron Paul could be Republican spoiler
• New York Times: Ron Paul Gaining Momentum in Iowa Polls
• Times Leader: Ron Paul supporters hold strong
• Washington Post: Ron Paul is for real in Iowa. Seriously.

By now everyone has probably heard about Rick Perry’s gaffe in yesterday’s debate: he forgot the third federal agency he would abolish as president. The best part was the priceless reaction of Ron Paul, who was standing right next to Perry. If you missed it last night, check out the hilarious video above!

Every day on the way to work, I pass not too far from the tent city created by the Occupy Boston protesters. It covers an entire block of the Greenway, a public park, and contains a food tent, logistics tent, legal tent, media tent, Gandhi statue, fire alarm, security volunteers, and of course countless signs and banners. I decided to pay it a visit on a couple of occasions, and it’s an interesting place – except for one person who yelled at me for taking a picture (maybe a bit of hypocrisy given Occupy’s enthusiasm about the First Amendment?).

The residents of the tent city were certainly diverse. There were lots of teenagers and young adults, many middle-aged and older people, and even a little kid or two. Some people fit the grubby hippie stereotype, while others looked like the average person you’d see on the street. On one occasion, a man addressed a large crowd of protesters. On another occasion, people marched with signs and flags down a nearby street. And on another, a large group of people sang while others played drums. Protesters held signs by busy Atlantic Ave during the evening commute, a man on a bicycle distributed apples, staffers of the food tent doled out supper, people took part in religious ceremonies, and at all times various people just milled around, sitting alone or conversing with each other.

It’s hard for me to decide what I think of the Occupy movement, because they don’t have any official leader or official platform. They are generally considered a left-wing movement due to some of their widely held beliefs, such as higher taxes on the rich, forgiving student loans and other debt, health care for all, and a stronger social safety net. But the Occupiers do have some things in common with the Tea Party movement. Neither is fond of the Federal Reserve, and in general both are all about the rights of everyday people and against the status quo and centralized authority, whether that be big banks or big government. I even saw a Gadsden flag, widely regarded as a Tea Party emblem, in the Occupy Boston tent city.

WikiLeaks noted these similarities, tweeting, ”Grass roots Tea Party, Republicans, Libertarians must continue to join #occupy. Keep it central: 99% vs corrupt institutions, patronage” and then added, “#occupy Don’t fall into the trap of more taxes. The security state will just spend it on their pals. We need accountability, local taxation.”

Regardless of what you think of Occupy, it’s never right to argue against a political movement by insulting its members with offensive stereotypes. But that’s what far too many commentators, many of whom I usually agree with, are doing. Howie Carr called them “spoiled rich kids,” and “trust-fund hippies,” and ridiculed their names, ages, hometowns, and occupations. Michael Graham dubbed them “clueless college anti-capitalists” and accused them of “stealing all the soap in the South Station bathrooms.” How exactly do they know these things?

Even if I don’t agree with them 100%, I’m glad that the Occupy movement is around and welcome their contributions to political discourse across the world.