Breaking: Ron Paul Will Not Campaign In States With Upcoming Primaries, Continues Delegate Strategy

In an email sent to supporters this afternoon, Republican Presidential Ron Paul tells his supporters that he does not plan to campaign for primaries in States that have not yet voted.

The letter reads as follows:

As I reflect on our 2012 Presidential campaign, I am humbled by the supporters who have worked so hard and sacrificed so much. And I am so proud of what we have accomplished. We will not stop until we have restored what once made America the greatest country in human history.

This campaign fought hard and won electoral success that the talking heads and pundits never thought possible. But, this campaign is also about more than just the 2012 election. It has been part of a quest I began 40 years ago and that so many have joined. It is about the campaign for Liberty, which has taken a tremendous leap forward in this election and will continue to grow stronger in the future until we finally win.

Our campaign will continue to work in the state convention process. We will continue to take leadership positions, win delegates, and carry a strong message to the Republican National Convention that Liberty is the way of the future.

Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted. Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have. I encourage all supporters of Liberty to make sure you get to the polls and make your voices heard, particularly in the local, state, and Congressional elections, where so many defenders of Freedom are fighting and need your support.

I hope all supporters of Liberty will remain deeply involved – become delegates, win office, and take leadership positions. I will be right there with you. In the coming days, my campaign leadership will lay out to you our delegate strategy and what you can do to help, so please stay tuned.

Though Paul will not actively campaign in any more State primaries, he us expected to continue full-force with his delegate-grabbing ground game until the Republican National Convention in August. His efforts are expected to give him more voice and leverage at the RNC.

Bush Administration ‘Guilty’ Of War Crimes

Last week, the War Crimes Tribunal in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, found former President George W. Bush guilty of the crime of torture and war crimes.

The verdict was delivered by a five-panel tribunal that also found former Vice President Dick Cheney; former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; Alberto Gonzales, former counsel to Bush; David Addington, former general counsel to the Vice President; William Haynes, former general counsel to the Secretary of Defense; former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee; and John Yoo, former Deputy Assistant Attorney-General guilty of war crimes.

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission is an initiative of the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalize War, an organization created by former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad in 2007 to examine abuses of Western governments in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.

Though the commission has no real authority, it carried out the hearings like a legal proceeding complete with a presiding panel of five retired judges and legal scholars, along with prosecutors, defense counsel and witnesses. The result of the commission’s guilty verdict will be that the names of the persons found guilty will be entered in the Commission’s Register of War Criminals.

The group says that because war crimes are covered by universal jurisdiction, the tribunal judgments “can be used by any government to arrest and subject convicted persons to a trial.”

After a four-day hearing in November regarding the commission of crimes against peace during the Iraq war, the Tribunal put Bush’s name on the list along with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and urged nations to arrest the two men.

Young Keynesians

Part of Ron Paul’s mission has been to simplify economic ideas into terms average Americans can understand in order to point out the crimes of Keynesian policies and the Federal Reserve. In doing this he has turned an army of young people on to the sound principles of Austrian economic theory, but the other side is fighting back.

It is no surprise with the number of left-leaning educators in universities throughout the United States that those who prefer Keynesian (or spend-your-way-out-of-debt) economic theory dominate the market on indoctrination. And as it becomes increasingly clear that this mainstream economic policy is deeply flawed and unsustainable, the Keynesians are working to make younger audiences favor their ideas.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York touts an “education” initiative called the High School Fed Challenge that it claims is an effort to “bring real-world economics” to high school classrooms. In a series of competitions hosted by Fed board members, students compete in analyzing economic current events to determine which are most able to sound like Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in delivering suggestions for a course of monetary action.

NPR reported on the most recent installment of the competition which was won by students from Montclair High School in Montclair, N.J.: “The students are clearly very good at parroting Ben Bernanke. But they also seem to have a solid grasp of what the economy means for their own lives…Obviously, putting the words ‘Fed Challenge’ on a college application looks impressive. But there’s also a sense that understanding all this stuff really matters right now. In the finals, the students answer questions about things the people who run the Fed are debating right now — from quantitative easing to the outlook for inflation.”

While only a small number of students participate in the Fed Challenge, the initiative represents what many people might recognize as a broader problem in the state of modern economic thinking: Many leading economists simply have not been largely exposed to Austrian economics. The efforts of people like Paul and Economic Policy Journal publisher Robert Wenzel, however, are slowly bringing the conservative economic idea into the conversation.

Wenzel writes of a speech he was recently invited to give at the Federal Reserve in New York:

I then asked one economist ( a 20 year plus veteran of the Fed) if he was familiar with Austrian economics. He said that in college he had taken two history of economics courses and then said that the Austrian school is part of the classical tradition. This told me that he was not aware of the important differences between the Austrian school and classical economics (and also the neo-classical tradition).

…Overall, I was simply amazed at the lack of knowledge of these economists about the Austrian school. It was very close to non-existent. This points out the extremely important work being done by the Mises Institute and also Ron Paul. The number of students with an understanding of Austrian economics is increasing at an exponential rate. I can’t imagine that future economists, even those who work for the Fed, won’t have some acquaintance with Austrian economics thanks to MI and Ron Paul.

Maybe if the trend continues, it will become normal at some point in the future to read an economic editorial in The New York Times that touts the value of Austrian ideals rather than the Keynesian nonsense regularly disseminated by the likes of Paul Krugman.

Obama, States’ Rights Hypocrisy And False Hope

Did President Barack Obama become the first President in the history of the United States to announce that he is a homosexual this week? No, he didn’t. But with the amount of coverage of what he did say and jubilation from the gay community, it almost seems as though he did.

The President’s remarks on Wednesday should be minimally surprising to both his critics and his supporters.

“I’ve always been adamant that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally,” Obama told ABC’s Robin Roberts.

This is something that Americans already know, as the remark was made by the head of an Administration that ended the ban on openly gay individuals serving in the United States military.

Obama went on to say:

I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.

Some pundits claim that Obama has exhibited the paramount in political bravery in simply uttering the words “I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” but others would classify the so-called bravery as cowardice. The President has been under pressure to comment on the issue of gay marriage since gaffe-happy Vice President Joe Biden said last Sunday that he completely supports the rights of gay Americans to marry.

While party-line Republicans and Democrats have certainly seized the moment and either used it in criticism or support of the President, there exists no political victory or defeat for either side in what he said. What is illustrated by Obama’s support of gay marriage — but, only as a State issue — is what some people might recognize as the President’s disdain for States’ rights and how even when he advocates them, he cancels them out.

Obama instructed the Justice Department in February to no longer defend the Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, the legal prohibition on Federal recognition of same-sex marriages. DOMA also included provisions giving States that opt out of allowing gay Americans to marry the right to decline to recognize gay marriages performed in other States. Essentially, the President has attempted to play both sides of the issue: Support States’ rights to perform gay marriages while eliminating other States’ rights to decline to recognize those marriages performed in other States, 1+(-1)=0.

This is just a new example of Obama’s false hope. Consider how he has hoped medical marijuana patients in some States would have short-term memory loss about his 2008 campaign rhetoric on States’ rights and pot. Remember how he wasn’t planning to “use Justice Department resources to try and circumvent State laws about medical marijuana.” Well, he has changed his tune of late, saying last month: “It’s against Federal law. I can’t nullify Congressional law. I can’t ask the Justice Department to say, ‘Ignore completely a Federal law that’s on the books.’”

DOJ Sues Sheriff Joe Arpaio

The Justice Department has sued America’s self-proclaimed toughest sheriff, Joe Arpaio, over allegations that his office racially profiles Latinos in immigration patrols.

The Department alleges that Arpaio’s Maricopa County Sheriff’s office is involved in discriminatory and unConstitutional law enforcement actions against Latinos, discriminatory jail practices against Latino inmates with limited English skills and illegal retaliation against critics of its practices.

“At its core, this is an abuse of power case involving Sheriff Arpaio and a sheriff’s office that disregarded the Constitution, ignored sound police practices, and did not hesitate to retaliate against perceived critics in a variety of unlawful ways,” said Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for the DOJ Civil Rights Division. “Constitutional policing and effective policing go hand in hand.  The complaint outlines how Sheriff Arpaio’s actions were neither constitutional nor effective.  No one in Maricopa County is above the law and the department will fight to ensure that the promise of the Constitution is realized by everyone in Maricopa County.”

At a press conference Wednesday, Arpaio denied the profiling allegations and said: “I’d like to get this resolved, but I’m not going to give up my authority to the Federal government. It’s as simple as that.”

In March, Arpaio, who said he believes the DOJ is targeting him for other reasons, made headlines when he gave a press conference further questioning President Barack Obama’s citizenship and eligibility to hold the Nation’s highest office. The sheriff’s Cold Case Posse announced that the White House-released Long Form Birth Certificate for Obama was most likely a forgery, probably produced on a computer, and that the President’s Selective Service card was also a computer-generated forgery.

In a Thursday press release, the DOJ said of the suit against Arpaio:

Today, the Department of Justice did something it has done only once before in the 18-year history of our civil police reform work; we filed a contested lawsuit to stop discriminatory and unconstitutional law enforcement practices. In our police reform work, we have invariably been able to work collaboratively with law enforcement agencies to build better departments and safer communities. Maricopa County, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and Sheriff Arpaio have been a glaring exception.

The Victims Who Run America

At one time, higher education, especially as it pertained to cultural studies, was synonymous with fierce ideological debate about what things were most influential in shaping human beings into the creatures they are today. No more. The age of oversensitivity and political correctness has sterilized thought even among thinkers.

The Chronicle of Higher Education, a publication that is both widely read and well respected within the academic community, recently fired a woman named Naomi Schaefer Riley, a contributor to the publication’s blog Brainstorm, for doing what academics were once expected to do: think and analyze. In an opinion piece — yes, this means the publication was paying Riley to offer her opinion in writing on various topics — the writer committed high treason in a society made stupid by oversensitivity taking a contrarian position among academics and writing about an issue involving race.

The writing that ended Riley’s tenure with The Chronicle weighs in at just over 500 words and is entitled “The Most Persuasive Case for Eliminating Black Studies? Just Read the Dissertations.” The author opines in her piece that students pursing doctoral degrees in the field of black studies focus their dissertations too often on frivolous topics and tired blacks-are-always-the-victim arguments. She references a previous article published by The Chronicle that profiles the “young guns” of black studies; she describes the students’ work as “a collection of left-wing victimization claptrap.”

Riley writes:

That’s what I would say about Ruth Hayes’ dissertation, “‘So I Could Be Easeful’: Black Women’s Authoritative Knowledge on Childbirth.” It began because she “noticed that nonwhite women’s experiences were largely absent from natural-birth literature, which led me to look into historical black midwifery.” How could we overlook the nonwhite experience in “natural birth literature,” whatever the heck that is? It’s scandalous and clearly a sign that racism is alive and well in America, not to mention academia.

…But topping the list in terms of sheer political partisanship and liberal hackery is La TaSha B. Levy. According to the Chronicle, “Ms. Levy is interested in examining the long tradition of black Republicanism, especially the rightward ideological shift it took in the 1980s after the election of Ronald Reagan. Ms. Levy’s dissertation argues that conservatives like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, John McWhorter, and others have ‘played one of the most-significant roles in the assault on the civil-rights legacy that benefited them.’” The assault on civil rights? Because they don’t favor affirmative action they are assaulting civil rights? Because they believe there are some fundamental problems in black culture that cannot be blamed on white people they are assaulting civil rights?

Riley, a white academic writing an article for a publication about higher education, points out that many of the students majoring in black studies likely adhere to the popular narrative that nothing has changed racially in the United States in the past 50 years. She also points out that the students’ failure to focus on real issues perpetuates the left’s message that black people are the victim and white people are still their oppressors, despite major race-relations improvements in modern history. Riley should have known she was going to be fired.

Commenters on Riley’s blog, many of them academics (read perpetuators of the plague that is political correctness), attacked her for her insensitivity and for not first reading the students’ dissertations before offering her critique. An online petition with the names of 6,500 people who wanted her fired was also put together and sent to The Chronicle.

“…[S]ince this is a blog about academia and not journalism, I’ll forgive the commenters for not understanding that it is not my job to read entire dissertations before I write a 500-word piece about them,” Riley responded in her own defense. “I read some academic publications … but there are not enough hours in the day or money in the world to get me to read a dissertation on historical black midwifery. In fact, I’d venture to say that fewer than 20 people in the whole world will read it.”

Her response elicits two reactions from this author: 1) She is correct. An individual who is broadly interested in black studies likely would find many more intriguing bits of published material to devour before spending valuable time reading something with a title like “‘So I Could Be Easeful’: Black Women’s Authoritative Knowledge on Childbirth.” (But, of course, I am a white man, so that is probably just a display of the racist, women-hating tendencies that the left wants me to believe I have.) 2) Would Riley have been fired if she had written a similar piece criticizing equally poor efforts by doctoral students on a philosophy tract? Probably not.

Sadly, Riley was fired because her piece focuses critically on black studies. Her argument, though, could be applied to all aspects of the system of higher education, which is quickly seeing all of its institutions turn into profit-driven diploma mills unconcerned with knowledge. Her critique is about the absurdity of institutions of higher learning allowing doctoral students, particularly those studying liberal arts, to graduate with the belief that they are prepared to teach undergraduate students after obtaining credentials in only very specific areas.

She writes to those who disliked her original piece: “Such is the state of academic research these days. The disciplines multiply. The publication topics become more and more irrelevant and partisan. No one reads them. And the people whom we expect to offer undergraduates a broad liberal-arts education (in return for billions of dollars from parents and taxpayers) never get trained to do so. Instead the ivory tower pushes them further and further into obscurity.”

An editor at The Chronicle (which is evidently just as blinded by politically correct nonsense as the institutions it covers and, thus, is averse to harsh critique with even a mention of race) says of Riley’s post:

We now agree that Ms. Riley’s blog posting did not meet The Chronicle’s basic editorial standards for reporting and fairness in opinion articles. As a result, we have asked Ms. Riley to leave the Brainstorm blog.

Since Brainstorm was created five years ago, we have sought out bloggers representing a range of intellectual and political views, and we have allowed them broad freedom in topics and approach.  As part of that freedom, Brainstorm writers were able to post independently; Ms. Riley’s post was not reviewed until after it was posted.

I realize we have made mistakes. We will thoroughly review our editorial practices on Brainstorm and other blogs and strengthen our guidelines for bloggers.

The victims win again. And for that, undergraduate students at some university may soon have the option of attending a class on black midwifery or the philosophical importance of never, ever, under any circumstances, hurting anyone’s feelings. Perhaps that will lead us to a sort of victimless, utopian society. It is not likely though, because instances like Riley’s firing happen each and every day due to the efforts of the bleeding hearts and those who feel victimized by our society to silence anyone who says enough is enough. It’s alright, even desirable, to be the victim. Being the victim is a fast-track to the top whether one belongs there or not: Just ask the President.

Judge: Jury Nullification Still Lawful

A Federal judge ruled last month that jury nullification, a legal concept dating back to 17th century England and accepted in the U.S. Constitution, is still lawful in the Nation.

Nullification is a concept that allows jurors to acquit criminal defendants who are technically guilty if they believe the person does not deserve to be punished. Prosecutors, however, have argued that promotion of this right to jurors constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1504, which prohibits influencing a juror by writing.

In the case of 80-year-old Julian Heicklin who stood outside the Federal courthouse in Manhattan with a sign that said “Jury Info” and handed out pamphlets from the Fully Informed Jury Association before being arrested by the FBI, U.S. District Court Judge Kimba Wood said no laws had been broken.

The FBI charged Heicklen with criminal jury tampering after he handed one of the pamphlets to an FBI agent posing as a juror.

Wood’s 24-page order states:

The statute thus prohibits a defendant from trying to influence a juror upon any case or point in dispute before that juror by means of a written communication in relation to that case or that point in dispute. It also prohibits a defendant from trying to influence a juror’s actions or decisions pertaining to that juror’s duties, but only if the defendant made that communication in relation to a case or point in dispute before that juror. The statute therefore squarely criminalizes efforts to influence the outcome of a case, but exempts the broad categories of journalistic, academic, political, and other writings that discuss the roles and responsibilities of jurors in general, as well as innocent notes from friends and spouses encouraging jurors to arrive on time or to rush home, to listen closely or to deliberate carefully, but with no relation to the outcome of a particular case.

Accordingly, the court reads the plain text of the statute to require that a defendant must have sought to influence a juror through a written communication in relation either to a specific case before that juror or to a substantive point in dispute between two or more parties before that juror.

Nullification played a role in guaranteeing freedom of religion when William Penn was prosecuted for preaching Quakerism, and in freedom of the press in the trial of John Peter Zenger when he was charged with criticizing the king during Colonial times. With more than 4,500 Federal laws on the books and an ever-growing legal bureaucracy, nullification may be vital to reducing harmful prosecutions.

Your Loving Government

The Administration of Barack Obama has made it pretty clear with a recent campaign website launch what it thinks the role of government is in Americans’ lives: Lifelong nanny.

The initiative features a fictitious woman named Julia whose life can be followed from the age of 3 to 67 by clicking through a number of slides. Each of the slides depicts—in a garishly Dear Leader sort of way— how the woman’s life would differ under a nanny state controlled by Obama and under one controlled by Mitt Romney.

Navigating the site, visitors follow Julia’s life growing up in a world of hasty generalizations. The slides show the different ways in which the two candidates’ visions of the nanny state would affect Julia’s entire life.

Policymic writer Sylvia Cruz points out:

When Julia starts public school, Obama is there. When she goes to college, he’s there. When she decides to have a child, there is no mention of a spouse or any other family, but it is okay, because Obama is there instead. Do you want to start a business ladies? You probably can’t without Obama.

It’s a disturbing depiction of how the left envision the role of government in our private lives — one that is present and pervading at every major (and probably minor) stage. It’s somewhat ironic then that Obama’s Julia shares the same name as the main female character in George Orwell’s 1984; the world of Orwell’s Julia is also one with an omnipresent government.

The character’s name may be a coincidence, but maybe it is a subtle clue.

If it is a clue, another may be how the Obama Administration put the American flag in the wrong place on one of the slides.

From the U.S. Flag Code:

When displayed from a staff in a church or public auditorium, the flag of the United States of America should hold the position of superior prominence, in advance of the audience, and in the position of honor at the clergyman’s or speaker’s right as he faces the audience. Any other flag so displayed should be placed on the left of the clergyman or speaker or to the right of the audience.

These are, perhaps, minor hints from the elites that control the American masses about how they would love to fundamentally and irrevocably alter the United States.

The big picture, judging by Julia’s life, is that government wants to remove the individual and the family from his/her own life and decisions. Julia is largely alone her entire life but always cradled by the hands of a loving government. That is, until she is retired and goes off to work in a community garden in the last slide, no doubt organized by a government entity.

You can view Julia’s life here.

Racist Teachers Making Minorities Dumb

Since the “political correctness” disease struck the United States in the 1990s Americans on the whole have become petrified of saying or doing anything that could be misconstrued as callous, or worse, racist.

Some would argue that the over-sensitization of the Nation is leading to decay of heritage and cultural pride along with intelligence as people are indoctrinated with the idea from their earliest education that every person is the same regardless of background. Of course, the people who would dare to make such an argument would be promptly flagged as callous or racist by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

A new report from Rutgers University in Newark, N.J., will likely be overlooked by hate watchers because it illustrates how the very way of thinking lauded by the oversensitive is dumbing down the populations they are so intent on helping to succeed.

A study currently published in the Journal of Educational Psychology shows, through a phenomenon dubbed “positive bias,” how affirmative action policies hold back minority youth and lead to their dependence on similar policies to succeed throughout life. Psychology professor Kent D. Harber indicates in the study that public school teachers under-challenge minority students by providing them more positive feedback than they give to white students even when they deserve equal merit.

Harber used 113 white middle school and high school teachers in two public school districts located in the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut tri-State area, one middle class and white, and the other more working class and racially mixed, to conduct his study. The researcher had the white teachers read poorly written essays that they believed were written by either white, black or Latino students and give feedback to be sent directly to the student.

All of the essays were actually developed by Harber, but he found that when the teachers believed him to be a black or Latino student he got more positive feedback than when they thought he was a white student despite the work being of equally poor quality. This racism to avoid being called a racist is holding back the minority students.

“The social implications of these results are important; many minority students might not be getting input from instructors that stimulates intellectual growth and fosters achievement. Some education scholars believe that minorities under-perform because they are insufficiently challenged—the ‘bigotry of lowered expectations,’ in popular parlance,” Harber explains. “The JEP study indicates one important way that this insufficient challenge might occur: in positively biased feedback.”

Harber believes the study’s findings have implications not only for educational systems in the U.S. but also for businesses, and in fact any organization where performance appraisals and feedback are crucial tools for training and development.

While the study shows that Americans would be better off without the fear created by oversensitive political correctness, the concept may be so rooted in the Nation’s society at this point that it is impossible to remove.

Russian media outlet RT poked fun at Americans’ oversensitivity to everything in the following broadcast from earlier this week:

Remember, you have freedom of speech and of thought in the United States as long as you avoid criticisms—even constructive—of any being that could be considered a minority or weaker than yourself, and any utterance that could be misconstrued by any person as offensive. Good luck.

Ron Paul Is Shaking The GOP Awake

Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul is gaining ground in his uphill battle to make his voice heard at the Republican National Convention despite being written off by the Party establishment.

Last weekend in Nevada and in Maine, Paul’s ardent supporters were able to secure delegate blocs increasing the likelihood of a brokered Republican convention in Tampa, Fla., or at very least the ability to assert influence over the Party platform.

Despite Mitt Romney taking 50 percent of the vote in the February Nevada caucus, Paul was able to secure 22 of the 25 delegates up for grabs.

“The Paul folks couldn’t get their people turned out for the caucus,” veteran Nevada political columnist Jon Ralston told The Washington Post. “But they outmaneuvered the Nevada Romney people ever since and dominated the county conventions and this is the inevitable result. The question remains: To what end?”

In Maine at least 21 of 24 delegates vowed support for Paul over the weekend, according to the Associated Press.

Maine is the sixth State to elect a majority of Paul backers to the national convention, assuring the libertarian-leaning congressman a prime-time podium at the Tampa gathering.

Romney currently has 856 delegates, 288 short of the 1,144 needed for the nomination to Paul’s 94, according to an Associated Press count.

Upcoming primaries on Tuesday in Indiana, North Carolina and West Virginia will paint a better picture of where Paul’s supporters can take him from here. Political analysts like those at Smart Politics say if the establishment-favored Romney is unable to secure more than two-thirds of the vote Tuesday, Paul will wield some serious power over the GOP.

Paul’s campaign manager, John Tate, said of recent campaign successes, “Taken together, these victories and those yet to happen forecast a prominent role for Ron Paul at the (Republican National Convention). They also signal that the convention will feature a spirited discussion over whether conservatism will triumph over the status quo.”

The Republican establishment has repeatedly cried foul over the Paul camp’s use of the Party’s own election rules against the status quo. They have accused Paul and his supporters of “trying to take over the Republican Party.”

But Paul would likely remind his detractors: He is only trying to save the Republican Party from itself and bring it back to its conservative roots. As the Party establishment scrambles to back Romney—a candidate who has repeatedly been on the same side of many issues as Barack Obama—it looks like Paul still has a great deal of work to do.