Alan Grayson is at it again. Although I disagree with his aligning himself with that racist, sexist wing-nut, Ron Paul, I fully support what he’s doing here.
Last week, Ron Paul and I sent a letter to the Senate Banking Committee about the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke.
Before he is reconfirmed for a second term, we think the Senate and American public should know who got the $2 trillion the Federal Reserve has lent out over the last two years. Only then will the Senate be able to judge whether he should keep his job.
It’s important that the Senate hear from you. That’s why we’ve launched UnmaskTheFed.com, an easy online tool to let you contact your Senators.
Visit UnmaskTheFed.com and ask your Senators to vote NO on Ben Bernanke’s confirmation until the Federal Reserve comes clean on what it has done with OUR money.
It would simply be unreasonable for the Committee to confirm Bernanke to another term given how little is known about what he has actually done. Remember, Ben Bernanke didn’t see the crisis coming and has added $1.2 trillion to the Fed’s balance sheet through covert bailouts…
Inserted from <Huffinfton Post>
I signed. Won’t you join me?
15 Responses to “Action Alert -Rep. Alan Grayson: Where’s Our Money?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
ANyrSg jttvwngsmwsr, [url=http://wjxrkmyakvgd.com/]wjxrkmyakvgd[/url], [link=http://gubzmpssgnpe.com/]gubzmpssgnpe[/link], http://fiedxrorgdpu.com/
"Trading insults never changes anyone's mind."
"…that racist, sexist wing-nut…."
Quentin is correct. This was unfounded smear from the campaign trail that completely contradicts everything Paul has consistantly said and stood for from the beginning. He hasn't a racist/sexist bone in his body. That's inconsistant with his philosophy of individualism.
You should look into this again and see the errors. Contradictions do not exist. If you find there is a contradiction, one of the premises is wrong.
I have to agree with the other commentors. Although Ron Paul has some problems, racism and sexism are not among them.
Dang! I should have realized that amy mention of he of the tin foil hat would bring out Ron Paul supporters. I posted several articles supporting that view of Paul in the previous incarnation of this blog. I'm not going to redo all that research, becase Ron Paul no longer matters. But here's enough to demonstrate that the position id supportable. From Wikipedia: At the end of 2007, both the New York Sun and the New York Times Magazine reprinted passages from 1980s and 1990s editions of Paul's self-published newsletter, The Ron Paul Political Report (later changed to Ron Paul Survival Report), criticizing them for content deemed racist.[6] The issue had also been used against Paul in his 1996 congressional campaign.[120]
Shortly afterwards, The New Republic released many previously unpublicized quotations attributed to Paul in a January 2008 article, "Angry White Man", written for the magazine by journalist James Kirchick.[121] Kirchick accused Paul of having made racist, sexist, and derogatory comments geared towards African Americans, women, and the LGBT community.[122] Kirchick also accused Paul of possessing "an obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry."
Clarles, nice try. The restrictions against attacks applies to this blog and its readers, including you, not to public figures. Personally I have nothing against Ron Paul, but I have read in his own writings statements about the place of blacks and women that were highly perjorative. My statement was an opinion based on evidence.
Brother, see my comment to Charles on the evidence.
TomCat, you know Ron Paul hasn't a sexist or racist bone in his body.
You are quoting the ONLY thing opponents could pretend existed to smear him with, statements by a volunteer in a 'Ron Paul' investment newsletter, run by a separate paid editorial staff while Ron Paul was back practicing medicine, not in Congress. That he didn't demand, years after the letters were written, that the volunteer be discovered and pilloried to pander to those who demand that sort of thing is the only 'sin' he 'committed.' The worst statement by the volunteer was that the Rodney King riots ended when rioters went to pick up their welfare checks. That was classist as much as racist, but has been pulled out in a 'racist' context. What is not disputed is that RP never said it. Go to the NAACP district chief interview on youtube on this, if you like. He had been friends with Ron Paul for 20 years and said RP was not the slightest bit racist. In fact he lauded Ron Paul's principle in pushing legal changes which would help minorities.
Of course, people like you never say the facts, just 'racist', hoping the mud will stick.
"I posted several articles supporting that view of Paul in the previous incarnation of this blog."
I apologize, if you have written about experiences you have had with Dr. Paul or interviews you have seen of him then I should go back and read them.
"…but I have read in his own writings statements about the place of blacks and women that were highly perjorative."
Not being sarcastic but will I find these readings in the previous blogs?
Ron Paul, Ron Paul, blah blah blah. Really, no one wants to talk about the Dums accidentally releasing the Graysonbot on an unsuspecting public? Now everyone is going to expect Dums to show some spine.
Nice way to stay on topic people. Who gives a crap about Ron Paul, what he is, or what he was. The point is that Congressman Paul and Congressman Grayson want to put the Fed's feet to the fire. You either sign on to the petition or not, geez. That's why citizens get rolled over on by the very politicians we elect. Apparently some of us have the attention span and focus of chickens.
RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL
HOW DARE YOU INSULT RON PAUL, SON OF GOD. HE IS OUR SAVIOR. HE WILL DELIVER US TO A PROSPEROUS FUTURE WHERE EVERYTHING IS LIKE THE 1900S!!!
OK folks. I admit it. This is my fault. The mere mention of Ron Paul on my part set off a tempest in a teapot. To those who support him, that is your right.
Quentin, I was offline until a little over a month ago for almost a year and a half. During that time, unknown people complained to Google that this was a SPAM blog, and without me online to challenge that assertion, they took it down. When I returned, I reclaimed the name, but all the information was gone. I did read excerpts from Ron's writing online as I described them earlier, and I documented it with links at that time. But at present, the only proof I have to offer is my word. If I ever have reason to do another article on Ron Paul, I will do the research over again, but I have no reason to do so at this time, because Ron Paul does not have enough influence to be a factor in today's big issues.
Bigbadmoon, as rude and disrespectful as your comment was, you are correct. This article is about supporting Alan Grayson. I should never have commented about Ron Paul. The mere mention of his name anywhere brings out a bunch of wing-nuts, and an occasional serious commenter, such as Quentin.
Tomcat, it sounds like you got in the same kind of trouble with your website that Ron Paul got into with his newsletter.
"Quentin, I was offline until a little over a month ago for almost a year and a half. During that time, unknown people complained to Google that this was a SPAM blog, and without me online to challenge that assertion, they took it down. When I returned, I reclaimed the name, but all the information was gone."
And I disagree, Ron Paul is a great congressman and leader for our country. He is not irrelevant and has much influence with a very large number of followers. In this regard, he may be the most powerful congressman. Despite your attempts to discredit the Ron Paul fans, they are not wing-nuts. Perhaps, if you decided to deal with the issues rather than making baseless accusations/insults/stereotypes you would gain a little more credibility. That's how you handle it professionally, buddy… I mean, if that's the image you want to project? I'm not sure ;)-
TomKat, the articles are easily located via Wikipedia, as are the subsequent investigations by actual journalists who investigated things like writing styles and former employees. The real media found it likely very improbable that Ron Paul actually wrote the words attributed to him.
But don't let that stop you from railing against one of the most honest men in Washington. Marxist czars? No problem. 30 year old ghost writer comments? oooh – scary stuff!!!! You don't even realize how ridiculous that sounds.
Here's the deal: the blood of our soldiers in the Middle East is now on your hands. Ron Paul was the only anti-war candidate up there who stood any kind of a chance, and narrow minded people just like you allowed him to be demagogued into a political death. Obama managed to quash the anti-war effort. He's doing exactly the same things Bush did: bombing the Middle East, bailing out the banks, and running up debt. But because he promised you a teeeeeny little piece of the pie, you'll follow him like a puppy that's been beat.
Here's something your journals didn't report: Ron Paul actually wanted to fund health care, medicare, social security….with the money we would have saved on military spending. No, the stuff you read says "He wants to eliminate the entire government!" without providing a single piece of evidence to back up that claim.
That's gotta be scary stuff for Democrats to hear. It's easy to see why the smears started, and right on the eve of the NH primary, too. Good thing for you that demagoguery wins elections, because apparently that's all you really cared about.
Congratulations – Democrats lied, soldiers died.
And you're a special kind of dickhead for slamming Ron Paul here. Politics makes strange bedfellows – Barney Frank sponsored the Senate version of this bill.
Why in the world would you want to detract from the issue at hand? Do you think it makes you look enlightened? Because it doesn't. It makes you look about 15.
You know what? I'm posting clips of Grayson on my GOP blog when he rails against the fed. But you won't find one word from me about things like his rant against the GOP, because I am a grown-up, and can work politically across the aisle. Even with dick-heads.
Now I'm off to sign Grayson's petition, no thanks to you.
Eeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwweeeeeeee!!!
Hugh, I cdidn't sat all Paul supporters were wing-nuts, though many seem to be. I complemented Quentin in my last comment.
Angela, I do agree with some of Paul's policies, but when researching him before, the things I learned made him so distasteful that I fear for the credibility of anyone who associates with him.
Brother, you have that right! I'll say one thing. Nobody has more vocal supporters than Ron Paul.
This thread was supposed to be about the petition. Since it has wandered so far off track, it's time to close it.