Progressives and the Ron Paul
fallacies<http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacie\
s/singleton>
VIDEO
BY GLENN GREENWALD <http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/>
-
-
[image: Ron Paul]
The signature of Republican presidential candidate, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul,
R-Texas, is shown on the cover of an "Obama Countdown Calendar" during a
campaign stop at the Cass County Community Center in Atlantic, Iowa,
Thursday, Dec. 29, 2011. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak) (Credit: AP
Photo/Charles Dharapak)
*(updated below)*
As I’ve written about before <http://www.salon.com/2011/08/16/elections_9/>,
America’s election season degrades mainstream political discourse even
beyond its usual lowly state. The worst attributes of our political culture
— obsession with trivialities, the dominance of horserace “reporting,” and
mindless partisan loyalties — become more pronounced than ever. Meanwhile,
the actually consequential acts of the U.S. Government and the permanent
power factions that control it — covert endless wars, consolidation of
unchecked power, the rapid growth of the Surveillance State and the secrecy
regime, massive inequalities in the legal system, continuous transfers of
wealth from the disappearing middle class to large corporate conglomerates
— drone on with even less attention paid than usual.
Because most of those policies are fully bipartisan in nature, the election
season — in which only issues that bestow partisan advantage receive
attention — places them even further outside the realm of mainstream debate
and scrutiny. For that reason, America’s elections ironically serve to
obsfuscate political reality even more than it usually is.
This would all be bad enough if “election season” were confined to a few
months the way it is in most civilized countries. But in America, the
fixation on presidential elections takes hold at least eighteen months
before the actual election occurs, which means that more than 1/3 of a
President’s term is conducted in the midst of (and is obscured by) the
petty circus distractions of The Campaign. Thus, an unauthorized,
potentially devastating covert
war<http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/12/has-a-war-with-iran\
-already-begun/249467/>
—
both hot and cold — against Iran can be waged with virtually no debate,
just as government control over the Internet can be inexorably
advanced<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111226/23082117192/would-obama-veto-\
sopa-extremely-doubtful.shtml>,
because TV political shows are busy chattering away about Michele
Bachmann’s latest gaffe and minute changes in Rick Perry’s polling numbers.
Then there’s the full-scale sacrifice of intellectual honesty and political
independence at the altar of tongue-wagging partisan loyalty. The very same
people who in 2004 wildly cheered John Kerry — husband of the billionaire
heiress-widow Teresa Heinz Kerry — spent all of 2008 mocking John McCain’s
wealthy life courtesy of his millionaire heiress wife and will spend 2012
depicting Mitt Romney’s wealth as proof of his insularity; conversely, the
same people who relentlessly mocked Kerry in 2004 as a kept girly-man and
gigolo for living off his wife’s wealth spent 2008 venerating McCain as the
Paragon of Manly Honor.
That combat experience is an important presidential trait was insisted upon
in 2004 by the very same people who vehemently denied it in 2008, and
vice-versa. Long-time associations with controversial figures and
inflammatory statements from decades ago either matter or they don’t
depending on whom it hurts, etc. etc. During election season, even the
pretense of consistency is proudly dispensed with; listening to these empty
electioneering screeching matches for any period of time can generate the
desire to jump off the nearest bridge to escape it.
Then there’s the inability and/or refusal to recognize that a political
discussion might exist independent of the Red v. Blue Cage Match. Thus, any
critique of the President’s exercise of vast power (an adversarial check on
which our political system depends) immediately prompts bafflement (*I
don’t understand the point: would Rick Perry be any better?*) or grievance (
*you’re helping Mitt Romney by talking about this!!*). The premise takes
hold for a full 18 months — increasing each day in intensity until Election
Day — that every discussion of the President’s actions must be driven
solely by one’s preference for election outcomes (*if you support the
President’s re-election, then why criticize him?*).
Worse still is the embrace of George W. Bush’s *with-us-or-against-us*mentality
as the prism through which all political discussions are filtered. It’s
literally impossible to discuss any of the candidates’ positions without
having the simple-minded <http://www.democraticunderground.com/100290723> —
who see all political issues exclusively as a Manichean struggle between
the Big Bad Democrats and Good Kind Republicans or vice-versa —
misapprehend “*I agree with Candidate X’s position on Y”* as “*I support
Candidate X for President”* or* *“*I disagree with Candidate X’s position
on Y*” as “*I oppose Candidate X for President*.” Even worse are the lying
partisan
enforcers<http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/12/28/debunking-the-ron-paul-cares-a\
bout-civil-liberties-myth/>
who,
like the Inquisitor Generals searching for any inkling of heresy, purposely
distort any discrete praise for the Enemy as a general endorsement.
So potent is this poison that no inoculation against it exists. No matter
how expressly you repudiate the distortions in advance, they will freely
flow. Hence: I’m about to discuss the candidacies of Barack Obama and Ron
Paul, and no matter how many times I say that *I am not “endorsing” or
expressing supporting for anyone’s candidacy,*the simple-minded Manicheans
and the lying partisan enforcers will claim the opposite. But since it’s
always inadvisable to refrain from expressing ideas in deference to the
confusion and deceit of the lowest elements, I’m going to proceed to make a
couple of important points about both candidacies even knowing in advance
how wildly they will be distorted.
* * * * *
The Ron Paul candidacy, for so many reasons, spawns pervasive political
confusion — both unintended and deliberate. Yesterday, *The Nation*‘s
long-time liberal publisher, Katrina vanden Heuvel, wrote
this<https://twitter.com/#!/KatrinaNation/status/152838902011539456>
on
Twitter:
<http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cm9-zsT0Gvc/Tv7-CcDTGsI/AAAAAAAAAf8/8IoWnEk53Xs/s1600\
/paul.png>
That’s fairly remarkable: here’s the Publisher of *The Nation* praising Ron
Paul not on ancillary political topics but central ones (“ending preemptive
wars & challenging bipartisan elite consensus” on foreign policy), and
going even further and expressing general happiness that he’s in the
presidential race. Despite this observation, Katrina vanden Heuvel —
needless to say — does not support and will never vote for Ron Paul
(indeed, in subsequent tweets, she condemned his newsletters as
“despicable”). But the point that she’s making is important, if not too
subtle for the *with-us-or-against-us* ethos that dominates the protracted
presidential campaign: *even though I don’t support him for President, Ron
Paul is the only major candidate from either partyadvocating crucial views
on vital issues that need to be heard, and so his candidacy generates
important benefits.**
*
Whatever else one wants to say, it is indisputably true that Ron Paul is
the only political figure with any sort of a national platform — certainly
the only major presidential candidate in either party — who advocates
policy views on issues that *liberals and progressives have long
flamboyantly claimed are both compelling and crucial*. The converse is
equally true: the candidate supported by liberals and progressives and for
whom most will vote — Barack Obama — advocates views on these issues
(indeed, has taken action on these issues) that liberals and progressives
have long claimed to find repellent, even evil.
As Matt Stoller argued in a genuinely brilliant
essay<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/matt-stoller-why-ron-paul-challenge\
s-liberals.html>
on
the history of progressivism and the Democratic Party which I cannot
recommend highly enough: “*the anger [Paul] inspires comes not from his
positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within
their own worldview*.” Ron Paul’s candidacy is a mirror held up in front of
the face of America’s Democratic Party and its progressive wing, and the
image that is reflected is an ugly one; more to the point, it’s one they do
not want to see because it so violently conflicts with their desired
self-perception.
The thing I loathe most about election season is reflected in the central
fallacy that drives progressive discussion the minute “Ron Paul” is
mentioned. As soon as his candidacy is discussed, progressives will
reflexively point to a slew of positions he holds that are anathema to
liberalism and odious in their own right and then say: *how can you support
someone who holds this awful, destructive position*? The premise here — the
game that’s being played — is that if you can identify some heinous views
that a certain candidate holds, then it means they are beyond the pale,
that no Decent Person should even consider praising any part of their
candidacy.
The fallacy in this reasoning is glaring. The candidate supported by
progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of
critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has
been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim
children<http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2011/05/asleep-in-afgha\
nistan.html>
by
the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous
nations<http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-06-30/politics/30095838_1_al-qa\
eda-qaeda-somalian-islamist>
withdrones<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/17/us-drone-strikes-pakistan\
-waziristan>
, cluster
bombs<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/yemen/7806882/US-clus\
ter-bombs-killed-35-women-and-children.html>
and
other forms of
attack<http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/gen_mcchrystal_weve_sho\
t_an_amazing_number_of_peop.php>.
He has
sought<http://www.salon.com/2011/11/12/u_s_takes_the_lead_on_behalf_of_cluster_b\
ombs/>
to
overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power
of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens
for
assassination-by-CIA<http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/08/30/aclu-sues-obama-adminis\
tration-over-alleged-assassination-plot/>,
far from any battlefield. He has
waged<http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer>an
unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once
a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers
Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal
accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war
even in the face of a Congressional
vote<http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/1/493>
against
it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly
laughable<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/2011-review-year-secrecy-jumped-\
shark>
in
its manifestations, and he even worked to
amend<http://www.salon.com/2009/06/01/photos_8/> the
Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative
successes) when compliance became inconvenient.
He has entrenched <http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/the-cheney-fallacy> for
a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of
indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret
privilege<http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/expert_consensus_oba\
ma_aping_bush_on_state_secrets.php>
as
a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law. He has
shielded Bush era criminals from every last form of accountability. He
has vigorously
prosecuted <http://www.thenation.com/article/156997/obamas-drug-war> the
cruel and supremely
racist<http://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/race-and-drug-war> War
on Drugs,
including<http://www.npr.org/2011/07/12/137791944/obama-cracks-down-on-medical-m\
arijuana>
those
parts he vowed during the campaign to relinquish — a war which devastates
minority communities and encages and converts into felons huge numbers of
minority youth for no good reason. He has empowered thieving bankers
through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy, efforts to
shield<http://www.thestreet.com/story/11226640/1/obama-wants-schneiderman-to-bac\
k-off-banks-report.html>
mortgage
defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an endless
roster<http://www.salon.com/2009/07/13/goldman/> of
former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists. He’s
brought<http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/covert-war-us-iran/story?id=15174919>
the
nation to a full-on Cold War and a covert hot war with Iran, on the
brink<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/world/middleeast/30iht-politicus30.html>
of
far greater hostilities. He has made the U.S. as
subservient<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15014037> as
ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government. His
support for some of the Arab world’s most repressive
regimes<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/world/middleeast/with-30-billion-arms-\
deal-united-states-bolsters-ties-to-saudi-arabia.html>
is
as strong as ever.
Most of all, America’s National Security State, its Surveillance State, and
its posture of endless war is more robust than ever before. The nation
suffers from what *National Journal*‘s Michael Hirsh just
christened<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/slow-dance-obamas\
-romance-with-the-cia/238849/>“Obama’s
Romance with the CIA.” He has created what *The Washington Post* just
dubbed<https://twitter.com/#!/washingtonpost/status/151862588878225408>
* *“a vast drone/killing operation,” all behind an impenetrable wall of
secrecy and without a shred of oversight. Obama’s steadfast devotion to
what Dana Priest and William Arkin
called<http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/> “Top
Secret America” has severe domestic repercussions as well, building up vast
debt and deficits in the name of militarism that create the pretext for the
“austerity” measures which the Washington class
(including<http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-of\
fers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html>
Obama<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/obama-medicare-eligibility-age_n_\
894833.html>)
is plotting to impose on America’s middle and lower classes.
The simple fact is that progressives are supporting a candidate for
President who has done all of that — things liberalism has long held to be
pernicious. I know it’s annoying and miserable to hear. Progressives like
to think of themselves as the faction that stands for peace, opposes wars,
believes in due process and civil liberties, distrusts the
military-industrial complex, supports candidates who are devoted to
individual rights, transparency and economic equality. All of these facts —
like the history laid out by Stoller in that essay — negate that desired
self-perception. These facts demonstrate that the leader progressives have
empowered and will empower again has worked in direct opposition to those
values and engaged in conduct that is nothing short of horrific. So there
is an eagerness to avoid hearing about them, to pretend they don’t exist.
And there’s a corresponding hostility toward those who point them out, who
insist that they not be ignored.
The parallel reality — the undeniable fact — is that all of these listed
heinous views and actions from Barack Obama have been vehemently opposed
and condemned by Ron Paul: and among the major GOP candidates, only by Ron
Paul. For that reason, Paul’s candidacy forces progressives to face the
hideous positions and actions of their candidate, of the person they want
to empower for another four years. If Paul were not in the race or were not
receiving attention, none of these issues would receive any attention
because all the other major GOP candidates either agree with Obama on these
matters or hold even worse views.
Progressives would feel much better about themselves, their Party and their
candidate if they only had to oppose, say, Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann.
That’s because the standard GOP candidate agrees with Obama on many of
these issues and is even worse on these others, so progressives can feel
good about themselves for supporting Obama: *his right-wing opponent is a
warmonger, a servant to Wall Street, a neocon, a devotee of harsh and
racist criminal justice policies, *etc. etc. Paul scrambles the comfortable
ideological and partisan categories and forces progressives to confront and
account for the policies they are working to protect. His nomination would
mean that it is the *Republican** *candidate — not the Democrat — who would
be the anti-war, pro-due-process, pro-transparency, anti-Fed,
anti-Wall-Street-bailout, anti-Drug-War advocate (which is why some neocons
are expressly
arguing<https://twitter.com/#!/ggreenwald/status/152908596315820033>
they’d
vote for Obama over Paul). Is it really hard to see why Democrats hate his
candidacy and anyone who touts its benefits?
It’s perfectly rational and reasonable for progressives to decide that the
evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate,
whether Ron Paul or anyone else. An honest line of reasoning in this regard
would go as follows:
*Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by
covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the
hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant
with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked
Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for
assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life
imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to
bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought
by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe
cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the
preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent
environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of
reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for
America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in
a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.*
Without my adopting it, *that* is at least an honest, candid, and rational
way to defend one’s choice. It is the classic lesser-of-two-evils
rationale, the key being that it explicitly recognizes that both sides are
“evil”: meaning it is not a Good v. Evil contest but a More Evil v. Less
Evil contest. But that is not the discussion that takes place because few
progressives want to acknowledge that the candidate they are supporting —
again — is someone who will continue to do these evil things with their
blessing. Instead, we hear only a dishonest one-sided argument that
emphasizes Paul’s evils while ignoring Obama’s (progressives frequently
ask: *how can any progressive consider an anti-choice candidate* but don’t
ask themselves: *how can any progressive support a child-killing,
secrecy-obsessed, whistleblower-persecuting Drug Warrior?*).
Paul’s candidacy forces those truths about the Democratic Party to be
confronted. More important — way more important — is that, as vanden Heuvel
pointed out, he forces into the mainstream political discourse vital ideas
that are otherwise completely excluded given that they are at odds with the
bipartisan consensus.
There are very few political priorities, if there are any, more imperative
than having an actual debate on issues of America’s imperialism; the
suffocating secrecy of its government; *the destruction of civil liberties
which uniquely targets Muslims, including American Muslims*; the corrupt
role of the Fed; corporate control of government institutions by the
nation’s oligarchs; its destructive blind support for Israel, and its
failed and sadistic Drug War. More than anything, it’s crucial that choice
be given to the electorate by subverting the two parties’ full-scale
embrace of these hideous programs.
I wish there were someone who did not have Ron Paul’s substantial baggage
to achieve this. Before Paul announced his candidacy, I expressed hope in
an *Out *Magazine
profile<http://www.out.com/news-commentary/2011/04/18/glenn-greenwald-life-beyon\
d-borders>
that
Gary Johnson would run for President and be the standard-bearer for these
views, in the process scrambling bipartisan stasis on these questions. I
did that not because I was endorsing his candidacy (as some low-level
Democratic Party operative dishonestly tried to claim), but because, as a
popular two-term Governor of New Mexico free of Paul’s disturbing history
and associations, he seemed to me well-suited to force these debates to be
had. But alas, Paul decided to run again, and Johnson — for reasons still
very unclear — was forcibly excluded from media debates and rendered a
non-person. Since then, Paul’s handling of the very legitimate questions
surrounding those rancid newsletters has been disappointing in the
extreme<http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/qu-1.html>,
and that has only served to obscure these vital debates and severely dilute
the discourse-enhancing benefits of his candidacy.
* * * * *
Still, for better or worse, Paul — alone among the national figures in both
parties — is able and willing to advocate views that Americans urgently
need to hear. That he is doing so within the Republican Party makes it all
the more significant. This is why Paul has been the chosen ally of key
liberal House members such as Alan
Grayson<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7pGpZW6fWk> (on
Fed transparency and corruption), Barney
Frank<http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/06/ron-paul-b\
arney-frank-marijuana-/1>
(to
arrest the excesses of the Drug War) andDennis
Kucinich<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20109638-503544.html>
(on
a wide array of foreign policy and civil liberties issues). Just judge for
yourself: consider some of what Ron Paul is advocating on vital issues —
not secondary issues, but ones progressives have long insisted are
paramount — and ask how else these debates will be had and who else will
advocate these views:
*Endless War and Terrorism**
*
This entire four-minute Cenk Uygur discussion from last week about Paul’s
candidacy is worthwhile, but if nothing else, watch the amazing ad about
American wars and Terrorism from Ron Paul’s campaign which Cenk features at
the 2:50 mark:
*Due Process*
Here’s Paul condemning the due-process-free assassination of American
citizens:
*The Drug War*
*
*
*
**Whistleblowers*
*Drone assaults*
From <http://www.blogger.com/goog_1830104214>Politico,
yesterday<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70958.html>
:
<http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XOsuWMzTvAU/Tv8bUAAaAyI/AAAAAAAAAgI/OZIXVwPOBjc/s1600\
/paul2.png>
*Surveillance State: Opposing Patriot Act extension*
*U.S. policy toward Israel*:
*Iran:*
**
*LA Times*,
yesterday<http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-ron-paul-sanctions-act-of-w\
ar20111229,0,4395532.story>
:
<http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-n5mCitoO_EM/Tv8dpvkwD9I/AAAAAAAAAgU/FM6mEpjT8O8/s1600\
/iran.png>
*
*
* * * * *
Can anyone deny that (a) those views desperately need to be heard and (b)
they are not advocated or even supported by the Democratic Party and
President Obama? There are, as I indicated, all sorts of legitimate reasons
for progressives to oppose Ron Paul’s candidacy on the whole. But if your
only posture in the 2012 election is to demand lockstep marching behind
Barack Obama and unqualified scorn for every other single candidate, then
you are contributing to the continuation of these policies that liberalism
has long claimed to detest, and bolstering the exclusion of these questions
from mainstream debate.
If you’re someone who is content with the Obama presidency and the numerous
actions listed above; if you’re someone who believes that things like
Endless War, the Surveillance State, the Drug War, the sprawling secrecy
regime, and the vast power of the Fed are merely minor, side issues that
don’t merit much concern (*sure, like a stopped clock, Paul is right about
a couple things*); if you’re someone who believes that the primary need for
American politics is just to have some more Democrats in power, then
lock-step marching behind Barack Obama for the next full year makes sense.
But if you don’t believe those things, then you’re going to be searching
for ways to change mainstream political discourse and to disrupt the
bipartisan consensus which shields these policies from all debate, let
alone challenge. As imperfect a vehicle as it is, Ron Paul’s candidacy —
his success within a Republican primary even as he unapologetically
challenges these orthodoxies — is one of the few games in town for
achieving any of that (now that Johnson has left the GOP and will [likely]
run as the Libertarian Party candidate, perhaps he can accomplish that as
well). As Conor Friedersdorf put
it<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/grappling-with-ron-pauls-\
racist-newsletters/250206/>
in
his excellent, and appropriately agonizing, analysis of the Paul candidacy
and his newsletters:
What I want Paul detractors to confront is that he alone, among viable
candidates, favors reforming certain atrocious policies, including policies
that explicitly target ethnic and religious minorities. And that, appalling
as it is, every candidate in 2012 who has polled above 10 percent is
complicit in some heinous policy or action or association. Paul’s
association with racist newsletters is a serious moral failing, and even
so, it doesn’t save us from making a fraught moral judgment about whether
or not to support his candidacy, even if we’re judging by the single metric
of protecting racial or ethnic minority groups, because when it comes to
America’s most racist or racially fraught policies, Paul is arguably on the
right side of all of them.
His opponents are often on the wrong side, at least if you’re someone who
thinks that it’s wrong to lock people up without due process or kill them
in drone strikes or destabilize their countries by forcing a war on drug
cartels even as American consumers ensure the strength of those cartels.
It’s perfectly legitimate to criticize Paul harshly and point out the
horrible aspects of his belief system and past actions. But that’s
worthwhile only if it’s accompanied by a similarly candid assessment of all
the candidates, including the sitting President.
*UPDATE*: Also, President Obama today
signed<http://nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/obama-signs-defense-authoriza\
tion-bill-20111231>
the
NDAA and itsindefinite detention
provisions<http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/\
>
into
law (a law which Paul vehemently
opposed<http://rt.com/usa/news/defense-ron-paul-detention-745/>);
the ACLU statement — explaining that “President Obama’s action today is
a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as*the president
who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law” *and “Any
hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional
excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was* extinguished today”* – is
here<http://ggdrafts.blogspot.com/2011/12/aclu-statement-on-obamas-signing-of.ht\
ml>
.
Close<http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/si\
ngleton/>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
Send Email
