>>>...sympathetic to fascist regimes...<<<
Do you RINO’s ever get tired of name-calling?
Fascists are big-government socialists. Ron Paul is the antithesis of a fascist. If you read a little history, you will find that the fascists take control of the economy and industry. In other words, you end up with a nationalized auto industry (e.g, like GM and Chrysler, or “Government Motors”), nationalized finance (like Dodd-Frank and the bailouts), etc.. In other words, you will have a leader like Barrack Obama.
Abe Lincoln was a true tyrant, and his much-heralded Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave. He banned slavery in the Southern states (where he had no control), but allowed slavery in the Northern states. So, slaves under his control remained slaves until after the war. His own general, Ulysses Grant, kept his slaves until after the war. Lincoln was slicker than Bill Clinton.
But I am not as eloquent as some, so I quote the unapologetic historical scholar, Thomas J. DiLorenzo:
“It was Lincoln who, immediately upon taking office, declared himself dictator, ignored the Constitution, abolished civil liberty in the Northern states, and waged total war on fellow citizens, killing 300,000 of them because they no longer consented to being governed by Washington, D.C. and politicians like himself. He did all of this on behalf of an abstraction he labeled “the mystic chords of union.” This was not unlike how future tyrants would kill hundreds of thousands, or millions, of their own people for the sake of “creating socialist man,” “the master race,” and other collectivist abstractions.”
In other words, Lincoln was a fascist tyrant.
For those interested, here is a rebuttal to DiLorenzo:
http://hidhist.wordpress.com/lincoln/thomas-j-dilorenzos-the-real-lincoln-a-rebuttal/
Here's an excerpt concerning one 0f the claims in question:
Page 35: (First edition) “At the same time, it is important to note that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave.” (The second edition uses the same language.) This is simply absurd on its face, for the Emancipation Proclamation was the legal authority for the freeing of most of the slaves in the South. For example, all of the slaves in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, were freed under the authority of the Emancipation Proclamation; freedom perhaps did not come until the Union Army arrived, but once this happened the slaves in that area were free. Moreover, any slaves from these areas who had escaped to Union lines — and there were many in this category — would have been freed from bondage the instant the Proclamation went into effect. The fact is, while some Union-occupied parts of the Confederacy were exempted from the Proclamation (notably Tennessee, southeastern Louisiana, the new state of West Virginia, and eastern Virginia) some were not. Northern Virginia was not exempted, nor were northern Mississippi and Alabama, nor coastal North and South Carolina. Any slaves in these regions would have been freed as soon as the Proclamation was issued. A good article (with a nice map) is “After the Emancipation Proclamation,” by William C. Harris, North & South, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 42-53. The efforts of the anonymous website to defend DiLorenzo’s error seem tortured, to me.
Bottom line: Paul will criticize the foreign policy of the U.S. - and it’s allies - for even the slightest intervention into other countries and their affairs. It doesn’t matter how dangerous and threatening they are, we’re supposed to sit back and not intervene.
But never, ever, does he even spout the most basic rhetoric at the Soviet Unions, China, Iran, Pakistan, Venezuela or any other country with hostile intent toward us - he simply goes full circular and blames us for their problems and actions. He REFUSES to admit any nation has hostile intent but us.
RP is intellectually dishonest - period.