Ron Paul, the cult candidate who beta-tested tea parties for the Koch brothers, has confirmed that he does in fact approve of secessionist movements in the United States, calling them a ‘check’ on the power of the federal government.

“I think what is most important is we have a concrete right to secede,” Paul said. “Even if we never had any secession, or any state declare independence, we would be so much better off, because there would always be this threat. Once the threat of a state leaving was removed, it was just open-door policy for the federal government to expand itself and run roughshod out over the states because the states couldn’t do much.”

In fact, no ‘concrete right to secede’ exists in the Constitution or American law, and the attempted secession of Southern states from the union in 1861 resulted in some 750,000 American deaths over four years while the rebellion was put down. Paul is aware of this violent history, telling the National Journal that “the heavy hand of the federal government would come down,” but in contrast to his outspoken antiwar message, Paul remains enthusiastic about the prospect of a bloody Second Civil War at home.

The contradiction is no surprise to anyone who has ever looked past his glib libertarian exterior. In addition to supervising his infamous racist newsletter, Paul has maintained such close ties with white supremacists over the years that Stormfront website founder Don Black considered him “one of us” — a praise echoed by former Klansman David Duke and the Montana Militia.

Clearly, Ron Paul is only mad about foreign wars because they involve foreigners, whereas he seems quite accepting of a Second Civil War right here on the home front to secure permanent white supremacy — or as he calls it, “freedom.” Paul’s stance on so-called “states’ rights” (as opposed to ‘Big Government’) is actually just a convenient cover for his desire to devolve civil rights onto fifty smaller governments, where as in 1861, they can be suppressed much more easily.

Ron Paul was the first Republican politician to hold a tea party in December 2007, but the ‘astroturf’ movement had actually been under development over the previous five years by the Koch brothers’ organization Citizens for a Sound Economy, which spun off FreedomWorks in 2004. Ron Paul was the very first chairman of CSE when it formed in 1984 — well before his racist newsletters, and perfectly in line with other pet projects by Charles and David Koch.

  • meangreen1

    Ron Paul’s a bigot who is a wee bit slicker than most, remember the late crime boss Carlo Gambino looked like a nice old grandfather.

    • Wrong_way_willis

      Or would the Civil Rights Act Democrats meet your Bigot Critera with an Absolute ZERO voting for the Act from all Southren and all but TWO Northren Democrats ?

      No? Doesn’t fit your bigotry? Hmm, GO figure…… ( this is my hypocritical face ..)

  • Rothbardian Slip

    This was a dishonest hit piece against an old retired congressman. Matt should feel ashamed of himself. Either something about the peace that Paul promotes really scares you or you’re just hoping to get traffic here based on Paul’s name. Either way, shame on you, Matt whateveryourlastnameis.

    • Yes. Paul promotes secession, which ought to scare the shit out of any sensible American. I take it you’re not a sensible American?

      • Rothbardian Slip

        I’m an honest american. You should try it. You’ll sleep better.

      • Rothbardian Slip

        I’ll give you a brief view of your, the author’s (sic) dishonesty.

        If you follow the link the author (sic) provides to back up his claim about Paul’s secessionist views, you’ll find this paragraph 3 before the one that was taken out of context for the article;
        “Realistically, though, Paul said he doesn’t think any of these groups could actually succeed. Despite the founders’ own deep belief in secession—they gained America’s independence from Europe, after all—he said the Civil War set the precedent that secession would carry “very, very bad” results.” The “very, very, bad results” part was added out of context and as more of an afterthought a few lines later.
        The author (sic) then adds this little gem;
        “Paul remains enthusiastic about the prospect of a bloody Second Civil War at home.”
        There is no basis in fact. Only a lie furnished by the author (sic). Pure sensationalist dishonesty.

        Next, “our hero” starts linking stories to prove Paul’s racism. The first says that Murray Rothbard, together with Lew Rockwell, was promoting a new libertarian sect that got rid of drug legalization and was based in racism. First, you can go to lewrockwell.com and find, literally, thousands of articles calling for an end to the drug war and promoting racial harmony. Second, Murray was a Jew. He wasn’t exactly cozying up to the klan. He then links to another article which says this;
        “The white supremacists, survivalists and anti-Zionists who have rallied behind his candidacy have not exactly been warmly welcomed. “I wouldn’t be happy with that,” Mr. Paul said in an interview Friday when asked about getting help from volunteers with anti-Jewish or antiblack views.”
        How much more proof could you want? He must hate Jews. Lol.

        There are more inaccuracies in the hit piece, but I’ll end where the “author” ends. When he implies that Paul was somehow involved with Charles and David Koch in 1984 he is being completely untruthful. Libertarianism split into two camps in 1980. Rothbard and Rockwell went one way, the Kochs and David Crane went the other. Paul has always been in the Rockwell, Rothbardian camp. He has had nothing to do with the Kochs after 1980. The author proves his ignorance of libertarian history here. You can google “Rothbard cato” to verify what I’m saying.

        It all boils down to this story being a disingenuous hit piece. Lies aren’t the way to change minds. If you can’t convince people honestly, maybe you need to reexamine your message.

        • Ron Paul’s racist newsletters continued for years and years and have been exposed by David Weigel, who is hardly a lift-wing loony. Despite your desperate attempts to disprove well-documented facts here, Paul was the chairman of a Koch brothers organization in the 1980s, and it was the organization which went on to create tea parties. You can spin these facts any way you want and cover your ears and scream all day, but you will not stop these FACTS from being true. The enthusiasm is right there in Paul’s own words, which I have quoted. Don’t like his words? Go complain to him about his racism. Go tell him to stop hanging out with white supremacists.

          • Rothbardian Slip

            Facts have basis in reality. Sorry, yours fall short. If it is so well documented that Paul was a chairman of a Koch brothers organization after 1980, you’ll have no problem providing a link. The story refers to the year 1984 but neglects providing a link. At least one of the links you provided refers to the strong ties between Paul and Rockwell/Rothbard.

            http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/it-usually-ends-with-ed-crane/

            I have no problem admiting that prior to the event linked above, Paul was involved with the Kochs. They were saying they wanted to sponsor a cause he very much believed in. When he saw their true colors, he ended his association. I had a similar experience with my first wife. These things happen.

            Paul has been smeared as a racist by many, no doubt about it. He has been active in politics since the 70s. Not one recording of him ever uttering a racist comment has ever been produced. Why? If he is too slick to say what you imply to be his belief out loud, wouldn’t he also be careful enough not to write them? Paul has never had any problem saying what he believes even though his beliefs are not always popular and many times painted as kooky. He has also fought against policies which disproportionately discriminate against people of color, such as the drug war and the death penalty. You can smear him as a racist. His actions speak otherwise.

          • Go argue the point with David Weigel, the libertarian reporter who broke the story on Paul’s racist white power newsletters.

          • Rothbardian Slip

            Wriggel is a tool of the Koch brothers, as are all of the people over at Reason. I should have known you wouldn’t be interested in the truth.

          • Sooo let me get this straight: when Ron Paul was running their organization, he wasn’t a “Koch tool,” but Weigel (who actually gets paid to work for Slate) *is* one because he used to write for Reason? I see how that works.

          • Rothbardian Slip

            You’ve yet to provide a link to your “heavily documented” false “claim” that Paul ever ran any organization for the Kochs. Let me say now it’s because you can’t. It never happened. When Weigel worked at Reason he was a tool of the Kochs. They are who provides the lions share of funding to Reason. They call the shots. Same as Cato. Now when someone spews forth his Koch induced vomit, they in turn become a Koch tool. How’s it feel to be a Koch tool?

          • 1) Paul ran Citizens for a Sound Economy. 2) CSE is a Koch creation. You just refuse to accept the truth because it harms your mental image of St. Paul.

          • Rothbardian Slip

            I was a libertarian long before I had ever heard of Ron Paul. I’m a fan of his only because he’s brought more people to the movement. He’s actually a horrible communicator and is no where near radical enough for me. I was a child of the ’60s when liberals distrusted government rather than relied on it.

            Of course, whether Paul ever worked for the Kochs or not, by your logic (sic), Weigel is a racist who forever carries the Koch torch because he once worked for them. I know many good libertarians got mixed up with them early on. The Kochs aren’t good people and the non-sell-outs parted ways when they were asked to compromise their principles. Rothbard, Rockwell, and Paul are all in that camp.

          • Rothbardian Slip

            So what is it about Ron Paul’s message of peace, prosperity and freedom scares you so much? Are you afraid that without rulers telling you how to live your life, what food or drugs you can injest, who you should or shouldn’t like, and how much of your money needs to go to help others you won’t be able to figure out how to live a happy and fulfilling life? Really, if you like being told how to live, that’s cool. Just do the honorable thing and leave the rest of us out of it. We don’t want our money stolen to buy bombs to kill brown people half way around the world. We don’t want our kids jailed because they smoked the same plant that the last three presidents admitted they smoked too. We want to live our lives in peace. We don’t want to be gassed or tazed because we don’t believe in your corporatist government. Keep your force to yourself please.

          • “Peace”? Really? Sedition and civil war are “peace” now? I think you’re confusing 9/11 denialism with pacifism.

            About this “freedom:” why does it seem suspiciously like the “freedom” that slaveowners enjoyed, and how come it’s couched in so very much bunkum and hokum about “fiat currency” and the Federal Reserve?

            No one here is telling you how to live. If empirical reality refuses to conform to your naive worldview, and Saint Paul continues to be unelectable, this is not because I’m here holding you down. It’s because your libertarianism is crap and your Saint is a racist conspiracy theorist.

          • Rothbardian Slip

            No problem. Keep spewing your Koch love. Luckily, by the looks of the comment section, no one reads your crap anyway. Have a great life!

          • All your comments have helped give this post a good Google-boost. Thanks!

          • Rothbardian Slip

            Like I said in my first comment. “Either something about the peace that Paul promotes really scares you or you’re just hoping to get traffic here based on Paul’s name.”

          • How awful that a political website would write articles on a topic that uses a politician’s name. Evil Osborne! you’re sposed to be writing about My Little Pony not Ron Paul

          • Rothbardian Slip

            Matt, if this ^^^ is representative the reading level of your usual audience, you may want to include more pictures with your future essays.

          • Rothbardian Slip

            I just realized this is one of your “writers”. LOL!!!!!!!’

          • What scares me about the “peace” Paul promotes is that it actually seems to be about having a Civil War at home.

          • Rothbardian Slip

            http://libertycrier.com/dr-ron-paul-flip-flopping-anti-war-democrats/

            What do Alan Colmes, Dennis Kucinich, and Barney Frank have to say about him? Listen and find out.

          • Briar

            I agree with most of what Rothbardian has said here, but I also want to point out that everyone takes away something different when reading an article, which I guess is why follow-up discussions sometimes veer off in different directions. Anyway, Paul doesn’t want a civil war; he wants a smaller federal government with more power to the states. This is what I focused on when reading this and (before now) when I’ve read all of Paul’s comments in context, I agree with what he’s saying.

          • Wrong_way_willis

            Then your ideological bent must stop formenting, race baiting, and other Alinskite Polemics: or you just might get what you wanted; go fish !

          • Formenting? Is that something ants do? I’ve heard of Alinsky before — isn’t he someone every tea party activist has supposedly read and imitates in order to beat “the left,” whatever that is?

          • Wrong_way_willis

            So some where on the intetWeb I named you a ” hack”, that is of course before this latest stream of rebuttals from you.

            Now I must apologize to every other ” hack ” for the ill fit comparison.

            You eschewing of labels while mimicking a court jester is apropos I suppose: in your private Lilliputian kingdom.

          • The purpose of the War between the States was to kill the idea of secession. Slavery was secondary. Lincoln once supported an amendment to enshrine slavery if it would “save the Union”. It was not the war to free the slaves but to enslave the free.

            Lincoln ordered at least one escaped slave returned to his master in UNION state Missouri. The Emancipation Proclamation ONLY applied to the SOUTHERN states, NOT MISSOURI or Maryland, Delaware or Kentucky. To this day Mississippi folks consider Kentucky as “North”.

            The thirteen colonies of the Continental Congress committed the sin of secession from England,

            England committed the sin of seceding from Rome.

            Kosovo committed the sin of seceding from Serbia, supported by Clinton’s bombs.

            Southern Sudan committed the sin of secession from Sudan.

            A dozen members of the USSR seceded from the USSR.

            Ukraine seceded from USSR and Crimea seceded from Ukraine.

            Pakistan and India seceded from each other.

            Israel seceded from the British Palestinian Mandate, and the Palestinians seceded from Israel.

            Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Costa Rica seceded from Spain, led by Francisco Morazan. Indian Chief Lempira is a national anti-imperialist hero in Honduras.

            Haiti seceded from France, then invaded the rest of Hispaniola, then the Dominican Republic seceded from Haiti.

            Bernardo O’Higgins liberated (won secession for) Chile from Spain.

            Angola seceded from Portugal.

            Zimbabwe seceded from the British Empire.

            Botswana seceded from South Africa.

            Curacao seceded from Netherlands.

            Surinam seceded from Netherlands.

            The Lutherans seceded from Rome.

            The Salvation Army seceded from the Methodists.

            The Pilgrims seceded from Europe.

            Texas seceded from Mexico.

            All of Europe seceded from the Roman Empire.

            St. Louis seceded from St. Louis County.

            El Doral, Miami Lakes, and El Portal seceded from Miami-Dade County.

            Cuba and the Philippines seceded from Spain.

            Panama seceded from Columbia.

            Taiwan seceded from Communist China.

            Most of us would be happy if California seceded from the USA.

          • Rothbardian Slip

            Wow! I wish I had the talent to write like you!

          • Thanks for the kind words, especially since my secret desire from childhood is to be a writer.

          • The purpose of the war between the states (from the Southern POV) was to preserve slavery. Sorry, that’s what they were doing, and they all said as much when they seceded. Gun clubs organized for violence well in advance of the war, and in the decades beforehand Clay and Calhoun had lobbied to conquer or “liberate” Cuba so that it could be a slave state. The issue on the eve of war was whether Kansas could be made a slave state despite its own desire to remain free. The South itself was an utter police state by 1861.

            Secession is some authoritarian racist bullshit, and anyone who says otherwise is erasing the memory of every one of those 750,000 people who died to end violent, slaveowning capitalism in America.

          • That may be right from the southern point of view in 1860, you get no argument from me there.

            Many of the grunts in the Armies of the North also probably were fighting to end slavery in their own view, AFTER Lincoln decreed the Emancipation Proclamation, TWO YEARS after the war started. Lincoln himself said the war was to preserve the Union and by the way, he got elected on the promise to continue to impose taxes on ALL the Union, meaning any states that seceded. That’s why he quoted Jesus out of context, “A house divided against itself cannot stand”, invoking the Bible to use Christianity for his war.

            In my opinion, the North SHOULD have seceded from the Union first.

            Massachusetts almost seceded years earlier over the issue of slavery, and secession sentiment started first and strong in the NORTH. So it was also an anti-slavery sentiment.

            From the point of view of the dictator Lincoln, it was a war to enforce centralize federal control and to kill the idea of secession.

            The descendants of slaves today are no more free than all the rest of us subjects of the imperialist federal government in the capital of Washington DC. They treat us more like conquered serfs than free people.

            They also think we’re stupid. Look how they’re using this mole at breitbart.com to get people’s minds off of how the Federal Reserve and the political players in our conquerors’ regime are robbing us blind and putting us in harm’s way, and killing the economy….

          • You said the words “Federal Reserve.” All evil flows from that wellspring, right? Central banking, central government, central heating and air conditioning?

          • Oooh, did I hit on your special secret keyword? Knee jerk much?

            Ladies and gentlemen, Osboenelnk had an answer ready. It is response #7 on the list of ready responses to fiat currency keywords. Manchurian candidate movie makers, take note!

            How about a real response now?

          • It’s not my keyword, it’s yours. Goldbuggery has been a uniquely nutty obsession of the fringe right for decades; all I do is point it out.

          • I’m not right, nor left. I see you are still deflecting from the other points in context in my comment, and gone to ad hominem instead.
            I gave you another chance to reply to the points raised and you prefer to use namecalling instead. Please try to concentrate on the substance.

          • You’re the one deflecting from your lunatic goldbuggery.

          • Okay, forget gold. Use whatever you want for a currency for mutually agreed exchanges.

          • cynthia curran

            True,

          • cynthia curran

            Not surprise. When Vdare Steve Sailer ran an article on the ron Unz approach of having a minium wage of 12 an hour most of the white supremacists didn’t like it since it punished businessmen. Unz was trying to make immigrant labor more costly in California in the service industry but Ron Paul’s followers always were against minium wage hikes even if it lead to some latino immigrants losing their jobs to kiosks and automation.

          • Rothbardian Slip

            Have you ever read about the origins of the minimum wage and what effect it’s had on black employment?

            Here’s a story by Walter Williams. He’s a black economist. The story discusses racism and the minimum wage.

            http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/walter-e-williams/attacking-those-who-cant-fight-back/

          • And socialists in favor of it to reduce the labor pool for the poor that need the jobs the most and to favor the unionization of labor monopolies. Thereby raising the cost and prices of goods that the poor need the most. Latinos and their businesses and blacks too most of all.

          • Wrong_way_willis

            And George Soros threw the Molitov Cotails in Prague, The Soviet Union, Thailand, England and here at OWS…{ oh. Please DO act as if you don’t understand symolic inference }

            Your logic is impeccable , Huzzah !!

        • cynthia curran

          Paul is a John Bircher not a libetarian like you. He spoke at the John Brich Society 50th Annervisty and both the Koch brothers have ties with the Brich society when they were yhoung and their fahter Fred was one.

          • Rothbardian Slip

            He definitely has different ideals than me. He’s a minarchist. I’m way past that. That doesn’t mean I want to see him smeared. I know he was active with the JBS at one point. They never really appealed to me.

            The Kochs have tried to hijack libertarianism over and over again. The thing is, they’re rent seeking crony-capitalists. True libertarians don’t tolarate that behavior. That doesn’t mean that the Kochs haven’t ended up rubbing elbows with most of the important libertarian thinkers at one point or another. Deep pockets are attractive at first. The good guys like Rothbard, Rockwell, and Paul refused to compromise their principles and ended up as outcast to the Koch financed beltway libertarians at Cato and Reason. Others stayed on for the cushy jobs and nice cash.

          • (1) I doubt very much that Ron Paul would have been “involved” with John Birch at one point. If so he was much MORE involved with Ronal Reagan and the Republican Party. What is the article author’s history, to be throwing stones.

            I have not seen any such evidence. Plus I do remember that early in the 2008 campaign the left-fascist propaganda machine made much hay out of ONE white-supremacist guy with a blog announcing his donation to RP’s campaign, a whopping $50, as if that smeared him.

            (2) It likely was a case like with Walter Block, who said he interviewed with the lying liar NYT reporter who took one response out of context to make it look pro-slavery, which of course is the opposite of Block’s view. –IT was an actionable crime under U.S. law, the NYT took advantage of Block’s philosophical objection to the libel courts.

            (2) The John Birch Society was founded to fight Communist propaganda, and so of course they were always smeared in media before Internet days. Like Sen. Joe McCarthy who “had a list” of Communist moles. Left hounded him till he finally released the names on it. Edward Murrow, news anchor who had hidden his studies in Moscow from the public, denounced him for smearing one colonel’s name on the list.

            BUT after Glasnost, in 1992, the USSR’s “Venona papers” were released that showed every single one of those names were indeed moles.

            This is just another ad hominem anyway. This author just simply does not like Ron Paul’s voting record. But all these ad hominem’s are like throwing mud to see what sticks.

            HERE IS HOW TO JUDGE:

            BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM.

          • Rothbardian Slip

            While I think Osborne takes every opportunity to smear Paul, whether through lies or twisted truths, I know that Paul was the keynote speaker at their 50th anniversary event. He says he was never a member but members have helped him in some of his political campaigns. I don’t know if that should be considered involved or not. Either way, he’s a retired old man. It’s time people quit smearing him.

          • I’ll take Ron Paul’s fruits over any such Osborne’s every single day of the week, the year, the month, year or century. Or in forever.

            The heroes of the smearers have much more to smear. They just follow every “wind of doctrine” that comes around. Pharisees plant a few people in the crowd (agents provocateur) to yell what they want, and pretty soon everybody’s yelling “Crucify him!”

          • Hypatia Livingston

            Then why are you here? You seem like you’re his number one fan, commenting on an article that’s probably over a month old lol

          • Ron Paul was glad to serve up the didactic lessons of liberty anywhere he was invited, including MSNBC. Walter Block explains that’s why he agreed to the interview with the New York Times where the propagandist who calls himself “reporter” libeled him with this same lie about racism.

            This is a campaign to try to keep the blacks on the “liberal plantation” as Clarence Thomas called it when he was politically strung up. The most polite guy of the 9, he actually refrains from all that rude adolescent habit of interrupting everybody’s arguments (and many times each other).

            That’s the plan. Never mind Ron Paul promised to pardon every single non-violent drug offender his first day in office, wiping out in one day the worst vestige of racism left in the country.

            Blacks have started to listen and join in with the message of liberty and the hustlers, money changes and thieves hate that.

            The article shows that Breitbart’s heirs here have invited graduates from Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” meetings to write here.

          • Ron Paul also interviewed on MSNBC so he must be a fanatic Obama-maniac, right? Riiigggghhht….

      • Wrong_way_willis

        No, it only scares morally bankrupt control freaks who would throw temper tantrums: in other words men like you.

        • And you’re a turtle-rapist. So there.

          • Wrong_way_willis

            That’s the best the author has. play dough sophistry ??

            My how debilitating.

          • “Morally bankrupt control freaks” is play dough sophistry, Willis. If you can’t stand being insulted, don’t go around trying to insult others.

            Libertarianism is a lie and you’re a turtle-rapist.

          • Wrong_way_willis

            Oh, you were trying to insult me? How blind of me, I thought you were revealing subconscious hints of your own lack of moral fiber.

            Anyway, that was the day before yesterday. that day, being the one day a year my self esteem is based upon what you happen to think or say of me… Hey look on the bright side, only 363 days to go until you’re relevant again.

          • Rothbardian Slip

            I like Willis but the turtle rapist argument is funny. Seriously funny. Sorry Willis.

    • JoeSixpaq

      The only confederate flag that matters is the white flag of surrender.

      • Wrong_way_willis

        Had Lee simply marched a few miles ( into DC ) from the First ( or second ) Bull Run, the Army of the Potomac would have turned tail and run. America would be half what she is in area today.

        But Lee was under strict orders not to raze DC, as he so easily could have, and in my opinion should have done.

        The South valued honor: they had proved their meddle, and hoped that would be the end of it, but Lincolns pride would have none of it.

        Lincoln, diehard Trotskite and Marx aficionado, a closet socialist ( gee, that’s WHY liberals love him !! ) could not be ” so abused “.

        Lee cost AMERICA not just her right to separate, he cost us everything worth having as a nation, by not obliterating DC.

        • Utter ahistorical garbage. Lee ventured across the Potomac twice, once for Antietam and once for Gettysburg. The names of those battles tell us all we need to know about why Lee didn’t repeat the experience.

          The defeat of the South had nothing to do with “Lincoln’s pride” or any other such nonsense — it was inevitable from the moment Grant won at Shiloh and resistance collapsed in the west. The South had neither the manpower nor the industrial base to fight a sustained war against anyone, and their notion that greater manhood would somehow defeat logistical and physical reality is typical of despotic regimes. Governor Brown of GA ordered 10,000 pikes — SPEARS — for the world’s first industrialized war. That’s pretty typical of the decisions made by southern leaders throughout the war.

          Amazing that you seem to be cheering for the side that fought for slavery. Why do you Southern apologists defend human horror like that? Is it that you wish you could own people, and order them to do the hard work around your house, or is it some kind of weird BDSM fetish that makes you wet?

          • Wrong_way_willis

            I wasn’t cheering for anything but constitutionality, but you know that.
            But since you’re a socialist you must not let an opportunity to advance a moral condition upon me that you yourself have never given a thought too pass by unmolested, hypocritical man that you are.

            I’d debate this war in polemic if you’d like, you seem to thing rather highly of yourself along those lines, an Achilles heel moment if I ever saw one.

            However I e neither the time nor inclination to do so. Perhaps later then.

            Good day, and work on your prose, and get a moral compass somewhere.

            Thanks for the entertainments.

            God bless

          • I have quite a nice moral compass, and it’s pointing toward the true North where slavery is evil. For some reason, your moral compass is different…

          • Wrong_way_willis

            Oh, you’re my tongue now, or perhaps you endeavor to either read my mind or heart…. Good luck with that!!

            We are all slaves, we all serve something, more specifically someone. Scripturally the word term from the Hebraic is ” Dulōs “, a slave either willing or unwilling.
            So saying that you hate slavery while being one is quite understandable from your perspective.
            Saying I enjoy or enjoin your slavery or anyone else’s slavehood is entirely dependent upon WHOM you’re enslaved too. If you have chosen wisely, and it is a choice if consciousness is yours, then I do rather celebrate with you your wisedom. If however your choice is consciously or unconsciously unwise then I mourn for you and shall endeavor to lead you to freedom.

            If I were to just discern by your ” fruit “, that is your character, I’m guessing you need led to freedom: that can only be found in Iēsous Christū: and to walk in His Way, will necessarily end in your becoming s Libertarian in politics, there is no other destination politically in Christū if the Way is followed in Faith.

            If you aren’t there, but believe in Iēsous Christū, fear not, the steps of the righteous are ordered if God, He is the author and finisher of your faith… You’ll get here, because from experience I know it, for I’m from where you are now.

            Sorry about the trite and abrasive nature of my prior comments, I misjudged your level of receptivity as well as my own EGO’s interplay.
            I’ll try to be on better behavior, after all this is your yard and that alone is worthy respect.
            And though I might disagree with most everything I’ve read so far, I needn’t be disagreeable myself.

          • Well, that’s nice to see you’ve decided to be civilized. I do wish you’d refrain from the sophistry, though, because being a “slave to the rhythm” is nothing like being an actual slave. Human chattel slavery is an unmitigated evil that deserved, and still deserves, to be erased from the Earth. To argue anything less is to rationalize something that is plainly immoral and un-American.

          • Wrong_way_willis

            On that we most assuredly agree… In all of its virulent shades !!

            I too rather we put ” pretense and preening ” aside: it’s been proven we are both Teflon and can both turn a phrase.

            In other words, we both use our brains for something other than a hat rack.

            I’d think we’ve wuite a bit more in common than you think:
            For example I grow my own Heirloom Veggies, had a super abundant harvest of Cukes. Squash(s), and Zukes, not to mention six varieties of lettace, and Khale.
            I harvest rain water to irrigate…

            How are you stewarding your world? In like manner would be my guess ?.

          • Wrong_way_willis

            I don’t ” defend indefensible things ” for which I do not employ, dull darts draw no blood as it were. I normally just refocus conversations back onto topic.

          • There’s nothing constitutional about secession. If there was, then the document would mention it. Also missing from the Constitution: any mention of Jesus, or which god is the “real” one.

          • Wrong_way_willis

            The original doesn’t refer to it directly either, but rabbit halving aside, we both know the Federalist Papers ( and anti-F ) contain the specifics required to cover that base professionally.

            And JESUS is that Creatorwho has endowed us certain inalienable rights.
            Reading Scripture, as Washington and Ward ( uh, Who was Samuel Ward ??? ), the two lamb like horns of Revelation 13:11, were both in relationship with Iēsous ( Jesus Christ in Koine Greek ) Christū.
            “In Jesus all things that are created were created, and nothing that was created was created without Jesus.”

            He is right there.

          • We also know there is nothing UNconstitutional about secession. If there was, then the document would mention it. The tenth amendment enshrined it by leaving the unmentioned powers to the states and people, and EVERY state that ratified that Constitution explicitly conditioned it on the right of secession.

          • If the Constitution allowed secession it would mention a mechanism for secession. It does not. That’s because the framers never intended that states should be allowed to secede.

          • The explicitly put into the Constitution that the federal government had ZERO powers not explicitly granted.

            Since there is no explicit mechanism for secession, there is therefore no constitutional mechanism that allows the federal government to stop it.

            10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people

            The federal government had no power nor mechanism to stop it.

            The US supported Kosovo’s secession from Serbia. They supported the secession of every former Soviet republic from the USSR. They supported the secession of Taiwan from the mainland tyranny. They supported the secession of the Phillipines from Spain and the Latin American colonies from European powers. The US supported the secession of Panama from Columbia.

            So the victorious North is one the most secessionist of all secessionists I guess.

    • Versinel

      Is the information provided based on current actions or past actions? People always say that people can change but is that really true? I need to read up a bit more on this one, kind of news to me.

  • Jeroniomus

    About this “freedom:” why does it seem suspiciously like the “freedom” that slaveowners enjoyed, and how come it’s couched in so very much bunkum and hokum about “fiat currency” and the Federal Reserve?

    Funny that you mock the very word freedom, putting it in scare quotes. That speaks volumes.

    The Federal Reserve devalues our money by printing it at rates faster than the growth of commodities, goods and services. They cannot print oil, or food, or steel. The supplies of real goods grow at a constant rate, if they grow at all, while the Federal Reserve prints money at a faster rate than the growth of real goods, thus devaluing paper money relative to real goods, impoverishing all of us.

    You dismiss this with a wave of the hand, because you are sooo smart. I guess we’ll see how long the money printers can keep their Ponzi scheme going. I dare say, you won’t have the last laugh, Xenophon.

    • There are quotes around the word because I am questioning someone’s definition of it.

      The Fed has been around for 101 years while its detractors have muttered about the supposed Ponzi scheme of money that isn’t backed by gold collapsing any day now…any day now… It’s like waiting for Godot, and you know who makes out like a bandit on that noise? Gold salesmen. I have a feeling I’ll still be right about this, and you’ll still be muttering about it, far into the future.

      The real scam is libertarianism.

  • cynthia curran

    White supremacists always puzzle me they can moved It ID, or Montana or Wy or the interor areas of Oregon and Washington where they are less minorities but they hate went states like Vermont but like Texas with its heavily latino population but they want to live away from the Mexicans and blacks in Texas. They are anti-welfare state because they don’t want blacks and latinos to get welfare but they cut off a lot of whites.

  • Wrong_way_willis

    It’s hard to imagine a America where two more diametrically opposed governmental theorms exist in struggle together as they do now.

    One, Libertarianism , Represented by the meek Dr. Paul, Ron not Rand mind you.
    The other, Socialism, represented by the uh hmm, author herein.

    These two systems can not exist entwined in stasis in perpetuity, one by nature must supersede the other: they are not juxtaposed ideologies.

    It is no small wonder then that an polemic assassin should attempt to brutalize one at the others benefit.

    Knowing this one can correctly disengage from the proffered distraction, i.e., the article in its entirety, and focus upon the Elephant sitting on the sofa, oft ignored.

    what shall we do one with the other now that the relativistic curtain has been torn asunder; your side desires extermination…. Always has, always will, hey that’s why Gyorgy Schwartz and Billy Ayres are your heros, right?

    What you can’t control through intimidation you seek to control by force: yet you fail because not a one of you can self govern, which is bedrock to Libertarianism.

    By definition a socialism is a mass collective of control freaks each vying for the one above thems throat, and fearing the one below themselves are grasping for their throat.

    Human nature you know, isn’t to think about the other guy first, that’s the exclusive territory of Libertarians, if and when it occurs.

    Ron Paul was such a Libertarian, you were blessed in having him and you are too arrogant and self serving to know it, mores the pity.

    • “Blessed in having” Ron Paul shake hands with white supremacists? “Freedom” is an old white guy who enjoys the support of neo-Nazis on Stormfront? Anyone who highlights these uncomfortable FACTS about your hero is a “polemic assassin”? Your comment is further proof that Ron Paul’s fan club is the weirdest crop of halfwits this side of the LaRouchies.

      • Wrong_way_willis

        Said the bedfellow of Marx who murdeted his millions…..
        An axe cuts both ways.

        It is best not to point out a spot on my shirt to shame me when yours is covered completely.

        I’ve no need to rehash Huffington Posts culpability in racism, ethnic violence, and her other crimes of association do I ?

        Get real please Mark, I’d love to talk about important things, are we done playing verbal darts yet???

        • Aaaand you “know” that I’m a “bedfellow” of Karl Marx because…?

          My name isn’t Mark.

          • Wrong_way_willis

            And your tendency is to be insulted rather than to let it lie and remain conversive, and I’m going to let that go hoping for the future.

            Sorry Matt, my replys from Disqus length do not overlook my laziness.

            I don’t know, but I use a very scientific theorem to ascertain such information: I guess.

  • winsmith

    Secession and nullification is not violenence. RP does not consider DOn Black (whoever that is) one of him. The author uses guilt by association and alinsky tactics, and is a piece of shit.

  • Cuanta

    I used to like Ron Paul as he does say some more explicitly honest things, but this took me over the edge. He is a traditional American…one who promotes the injustices of our past.

  • Philli

    I had no idea Ron Paul was affiliated with these organizations. I once saw him as a hope to Americans, but there’s no way I’d back him up now.