Replies

Oh, okay. Do you want to put Baumann or the somewhat obscure Sovereign Society on a banned list?

Sovereign Society, from what I can grasp, is overseas investors. They want to invest overseas, bank overseas, bring whatever portions of the wealth they choose back to the U.S. with the fewest taxes possible. They are, of course, no friends of big-government. They are a small investor group that want to repatriate profits tax-free, something normally reserved for big corporations like mining or oil companies or institutional investors.

There was and still is a strain of this thinking on the Right. People like Goldwater and Buckley knew a lot of them back in their heyday.

Admittedly, it's obscure. A lot of people don't grasp just how conservative the American Conservative Union once was. This reminds me of a story Robert Novak told recently about Ford-era Republicans badmouthing the excesses of Joe McCarthy. Novak said it didn't help them much because a lot of Republicans liked Joe McCarthy. Then he just laughed. Well, it was a Prince of Darkness moment. Maybe you had to be there.

At any rate, they're probably subversive if you think that money you've earned cannot be invested overseas and brought back to the U.S. as you please. I think some people in the modern era believe that we aren't allowed to do anything with money until we check first if someone might want to tax it. But the Constitution doesn't really allow for taxing investments around the world though they certainly try to (this would be the "cancerous growth of the American Empire" part). BTW, you did notice that Halliburton moved overseas recently? They're not the only ones either.

I'm not sure why it's fine for big corporations to do these things and not ordinary citizens. Since when did a corporation, an imaginary person, have more rights than actual American citizens?

LOL. I suppose questions like that are why Ron Paul supporters are considered subversive.

What interests me in these little stories about the overseas investors or the charter aircraft people or the online gamblers or the farmers who want to grow industrial hemp or the dozens of other little single-issue voters that are attracted to Ron Paul is the sheer diversity of them, that no one in either party currently represents them. I couldn't possibly name them all. It's an amazing list.

There is a considerable group of potential Republican voters out there that could be tapped into if our party would only take an interest in them and their issue.

Anyway, a thread that requires that much explanation probably deserves obscurity.