In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth is Revolutionary.
Saturday, July 13, 2024

Ron Paul’s faithful flock: Dedicated to a lost cause?

A Ron Paul supporter in Maine (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty)

What makes a small but loud and determined group of political supporters back Ron Paul, who candidate who has failed in two previous Presidential runs and — according to nearly everyone except his local flock — has lost his third and final bid?

Only about 10-12 percent of the American electorate support or vote in most cases for the always controversial Texas Congressman in three unsuccessful runs for President,

“Ron Paul is the only one who can save America,” declares many of his supporters.

While there is little doubt that America needs salvation, I believe there is considerable doubt over whether or not Ron Paul is up to the task.

Ron Paul is many things: one-time publisher of newsletters that too-often promoted racist themes, creator of get-rich-quick investment schemes that made him rich, a self-declared constitutionalist who claims to be anti-establishment but one who is also ending a Congressional career that spans 22 years as a lackluster member of the very establishment House of Representatives.

If one looks beyond the surface, the man who claims to be against the system may well be one of the most seasoned practitioners of the very system he decries.

Paul preaches isolationism and a return to the gold standard while supporting conspiracy theories – including the widely-discredited belief that the American government was involved in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

Visit some of the many Ron Paul forums on the Internet and you will find supporters spouting conspiracy theories by the bucketful. Visit the web sites of anti-Semitic and White Supremacist groups and you will find their Presidential candidate of choice is Ron Paul.

Paul has lost his third bid for President but stays in the race — he says — to amass delegates to influence the convention. His “delegate strategy” is to bend the rules in remaining caucus states and ignore the voters who gave the win to another candidates.  Paul’s delegate teams have been characterized by state election officials as “unruly,” “rude” and “attempting to influence caucus attendees with threats and intimidation.”  The questionable practices have become so widespread that the Republican National Committee is threatening to bar some of Paul’s delegate teams from the convention in Tampa later this year.

But is this man an enlightened Libertarian or a closet racist and homophobe? Read the sensationalist newsletters once published under his name and you will find statements like:

  • “… I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in (Washington, DC) are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
  • “Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressmen. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day!”
  • “An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth (to defend yourself against armed robbery), you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible…. I frankly don’t know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.”
  • “I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any coincidence that the AIDS epidemic developed after they came ‘out of the closet,’ and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy? I don’t believe so, medically or morally.”
  • “(Magic) Johnson may be a sports star, but he is dying (of AIDS) because he violated moral laws.”
  • “(T)he criminal ‘Justice’ Department wants to force dentists to treat these Darth Vader types (people with AIDS) under the vicious Americans With Disabilities Act;” and
  • “(W)e all have the right to discriminate, which is what freedom of association is all about, especially against killers (AIDS patients).”

In articles that ran under his byline, Paul called former Secretary of Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala a “short lesbian.” He praised former Ku Klux Klan Imperial David Duke as a “great American” and called Duke a “savior for the white race.”

At one time, Paul claimed the writings were his. Her later claimed he didn’t write the racist diatribes and didn’t know they were published under his name but aides who worked for him at the time say he is lying. He has changed his story about the newsletters many times over the years — a typical political tactic which appears to support the allegations that he is lying.

And his claims to not know raises an important question:  How can a man who claims he couldn’t manage newsletters published under his name possibly manage or lead a nation?

He can’t, but that fact is lost on his small but loyal band of supporters.

Paul appeals to people of limited intelligence, those who fear other of different color along with homophobes, racists and a disenfranchised minority who are so wrapped up in hating government and America that they will buy into anyone who claims to be otherwise.

But Ron Paul does not stand a chance of winning,  While some of his supporters may be genuine in their belief that he has the answers, serious questions remain about his abilities, his sincerity and his true agenda.

Copyright © 2012 Capitol Hill Blue

(Revised and edited on May 5, 2012)

Enhanced by Zemanta

50 thoughts on “Ron Paul’s faithful flock: Dedicated to a lost cause?”

  1. While I might agree with some of Ron Paul’s positions I cannot support a man who would take my rights, as a woman, away. From eliminating things like the equal pay for equal work Ledbetter Act to signing a personhood pledge that would make any unsuccessful pregnancy subject to a crminal investigation he is decidely anti equal rights for women. Supporters should ask themselves if he is really talking about liberty for them or for the white men he believes should have it. It sounds good, but he isn’t talking about your liberty.

    • I’m sorry but I cannot find a shred of logic on the idea that expending time and resources on a candidate who cannot possibly win somehow serves the cause of liberty.

      How does working for a perennially-losing candidate assure liberty?

      Will America be more free on January 20, 2012 when Obama is inaugurated for a second term or Romney is sworn in for his first?

      Will all this time and effort for a Congressman who managed to get just one piece of legislation into law in 22 years serve the cause of Democracy?

      Claiming that your support of Ron Paul somehow serves liberty is a nice sound bite Mac but that’s all it is — a sound bite. In the end, nothing has changed and a lot of time, money and effort has been expended for a lost cause for the third time.

  2. Excellent post Doug! Thanks for standing up against the dogmatic sheep known as the Ron Paulites. Though I suspect he’s popular with people who don’t know much about the various political philosophies, economies and American history from its inception until now. If they claim they do, it’ll be from Ron Paul books and websites!

    • So you would suggest that the Democrats and Republicans actualy have a political philosophy? I have yet to hear of one, unless of course you mean catering to their campaign contributors.

      It’s a sad day when believing in some thing outside the established doctrine (which is doing well for us, yes?) makes one uninformed and ignorant.

      By what scale would you gauge this knowledge of political phiolosophy? Of Economics? Of American history?

      Has the prevailing political philosophies of either party done right by America? What exactly is their philosophy? Please inform the ignorant.

      Has the Keynesian, centrally managed debt-based economy that both parties employ as an economic model made our country better or worse? Is it getting any better?

      Has massive deficits improved our quality of life?

      Has the Department of Energy given us cheaper, more abundant energy?

      Has the Department of Education given us better education for all the millions we spend on it?

      Has the war on drugs made the drug problem better?

      Has the war on poverty given us less poverty?

      I’m curious to know your depth of knowledge on American histroy, in particular pre-revolutionary activities?

      • Michael, I’m confused. I don’t think Ron Paul is the savior of America so I must believe in either the Democratic or Republican party “positions” if indeed either party has a philosophy that is not self-serving?

        Is that not engaging in exactly the kind of political diversion as the others? The old ploy of “well, the other guys are worse.”

        You’ve been around here long enough to know that I don’t buy into any party or political philosophy. I think they’re all crap, without exception. I think the crop of candidates this year are the worst I have ever seen in almost five decades in this business.

        I have no problem with anyone looking for someone or something different. Hell, that’s the way it should be. I just don’t happen to believe that Ron Paul is different. I think he is just as much a part of the problem as the rest of the bunch.

        I don’t necessarily believe that whole abolishing of certain agencies is the answer. Redefining their role perhaps. Banking deregulation didn’t help the economy, it helped lead to the economic meltdown. NAFTA didn’t open up trade, it gave American companies more incentives to move jobs out of the country. However, simplistic solutions cannot solve complex problems and what I see from the Paul campaign are quick-fix populist ideas that — in my opinion — ignore reality.

        That’s my opinion and I stand by it. Judging by the results of the primaries, the American voters apparently are not yet ready to accept the simplistic solutions of Ron Paul.

        • I don’t believe I accused any one in particular, including yourself, of backing any particular party or candidate in my comment.

          James accused supporters of Paul of being ignorant sheep who know nothing of political philosophy, economics and American history.

          I believe supporters of the two parties fit that description far more accurately than many Paul supporters.

          But I also know that in order to change the country for the better we need to start thinking outside the two-party box.

          Do I believe that many of these policies would be enacted? No, I’m a realist.

          In order to change, the dialog needs to change. Minds need to change. Our thinking has to change.

          These positions seem simplistic, but they are not. Perhaps in theory, but not in application. It will take a long time.

          For instance, perhaps getting rid of the Education Department seems extreme, but before it existed we had an education system that was the envy of the world. So maybe this “extreme” postition would move us in the right direction in redefining its role. And perhaps once that change starts to take place, the ultimate result would be the end of it entirely.

          We got to this point by increments. We need to reduce it by increments. So maybe the solutions aren’s as simplistic so much as the American voters’ grasp of them.

          • Actually Michael, doesn’t condemning members of either political party as uninformed also condemn Paul supporters — by rote — as the same? He is, after all, running for the Republican presidential nomination and some of the arguments I hear from his supporters is that he is the “only true Republican” in the race.

            That’s another problem I have with Paul. If he is truly anti-establishment, how can he run as a member of an establishment party? One could argue that doing so is the only way to bring about change from the inside but is it also not true that the same establishment will do everything in its considerable power to keep him at bay?

            It seems his efforts are — by design — self-defeating. This is why I would like to see a true — and viable — third party.

  3. Doug!…Alex!….Just got here…was there a bit of a dustup here?…I see a lot of Ron Paul banners and posters trampled underfoot …Doug, did you take on this group by yourself again? Looks like you acquitted yourself well as usual. You should’ve called for backup, but I see it really wasn’t necessary.

    Well, I guess it will take a whole lot more than what they’ve got to take down a lucid, reality-based, hard-hitting newspaperman.

    • Yeah Jim, I suppose I did stir the pot.

      I’m not sure rational debate is possible when the responses tout the same bromides, link to the same, self-serving YouTube videos and offer the same, worn-out platitudes.

  4. Dr. Ron Paul has certainly stated some vaguely good ideas. Some drugs should be legalized. However, the point made in the very first post, as I read it, was that he thinks they *all* should be legalized. That I disagree with.

    I find his points (given that I take him at his word, which Publisher Thompson does not, and has very good reasons not to), somewhat like the popular opinion of the legal profession, ie. the few good eggs it has laid are completely overwhelmed by the rotten ones.

    (As an aside, I have found that lawyers are like Congressional Representatives. Everyone thinks their own one is great, but it’s all the rest who are complete [unprintable]s.)

    Pulling all the troops out of Afghanistan? A good idea. Having them come home to a Protestant Christian Theocracy? Not a good idea. Changing the system? Excellent idea. Blowing it up? Well, those who propose that tend to find themselves in trouble with the FBI.

    Returning to the 1950’s? Uh-huh. Those who remember that time with a dreamy fondness should be forced to repeat it as one of the persecuted.

    So overall, no. Dr. Ron Paul, even if taken at his word, is not someone I want as Drain Commissioner, let alone President. If not taken at his word – that we flatly call him a liar – then he deserves nothing but scorn.


  5. I support Ron Paul for all the right reasons,I am informed and intelligent enough to recognize a slander/hate campaign under the guise of journalism that is so far away and so wrong and many levels of real fact. The little article smear stories don’t work anymore,people are much more educated than you obviously.People like you are on the outs,don’t let the door hit you in the ass as you fall.BTW I recommend you get mental help, and take a class on the Constitution.

    • I’ll make you a deal Kenny. If Ron Paul (or his son Rand) ever wins the GOP Presidential nomination I will shut this place down and give all my holdings to charity.

  6. Not one mention of any policy positions – only the same media misinformation, simplistic rationalizations and character assassination that this author routinely criticizes the American voter for falling for from the mainstream media.

    The system needs to be changed from within. In the meantime, it must be employed in order to achieve this.

    Have you ever come across an investment advisor that doesn’t seek to make money from his advice? The only difference is the vast majority never run for office.

    It took 20-plus years to break free of the British crown. The Revolution actually began in the 1750’s. Early patriots were considered radicals too. Independence was considerd too risky by many. It never would have happened without the crown doing its part to alienate and enslave the majority of colonists, nor would it have happened unless that small group of outspoken patriots allowed themselves to be silenced by the ignorant, frightened majority.

    • So now you’re a Patriot Micheal? What’s next? Martyrdom? Lord help us all. 🙂

  7. Good I think Doug is sound asleep with his lack of response. Isnt it great how the author of such trash gets called out on his own site. Keep up the good fight there Doug….that is if you can even recall why you became a writer in the first place. Ron Paul or lose it all.

    • Not alseep Matthew, just tending to business. Some of us work for a living and I have several businesses to run.

  8. What a childish smear piece. You must be really desperate. If you are going to blame a candidate for all of the activities of his suporters, then you should be fair and do it to all, including Obama. Sure there are some fringe elements who support Ron Paul. Every candidate has fringe supporters. What a pathetic ploy.

    You are sadly misinformed about every policy disagreement you listed. Maybe instead of trolling the forums you should visit the candidate’s web site and do some reading on your own. For the curious it is

    As to the newsletters, this is a 20 year old issue that has been settled long ago. Ron Paul did not write that stuff. Anyone who takes the time to find out for themselves knows exactly who wrote them, and who the ‘former aide’ is that has been making a career out of bashing Ron Paul. Look it up for yourself. I am tired of doing your work for you.

    Further, your statement that all Ron Paul supporters lack intelligence only indicates that you are simply ignorant and offensive for the sake of being ignorant and offensive. Name calling and pompus statements only expose your desperation.

  9. I didn’t want to justify this article by giving it a response, but it’s actually somewhat encouraging! The more absurd articles coming out against Ron Paul, the more obvious it is he is gaining momentum! Legitimate wins in Iowa, Minnesota and Louisiana. Not to mention the RNC threatening to not take ANY delegates from Nevada if they have too many Paul supporters. Paul supporters are being elected to local and state positions all over the country. We’ll be out of these useless wars soon enough!

  10. Hilarious OP-ED, Doug. This is what “winning” looks like. Ron Paul is winning. The neo-cons are running scared and this is just the beginning. Occupy the GOP.

  11. Doug,

    If Dr. Paul is such a con man, out to line his own pockets, why has he turned down the congressional pension plan? Why did he not accept Medicare and Medicaid in his medical practice? Why has he committed to the average median income of 39K/yr if he were to be President?

    • Because he’s made millions from his various scams, including those who contributed to his Presidential campaigns and then see their money get converted to his personal use through his “foundations.” He has a lucrative pension set up through one of those foundations.

      It’s easy to say you would only accept 39 grand a year when you know you don’t have a chance in hell of ever being President.

      It’s all part of the con.

      • Numerous articles have been written about the meticulous way in which the Ron Paul campaign accounts for it’s funds. Not sure where you get the fact that he has a lucrative pension from his foundation. Come on Doug. You know Ron Paul is the only honest politician left. Join the Revolution.

        • If he is so meticulous, why does he hide his money in foundations where detailed reporter is not required by law? When asked to disclose how the money is spent he has repeatedly refused. If he were truly transparent he would not hide behind the vagueness of foundation reporting requirements.

    • Russ,
      SHHHHH Doug is sleeping and needs to stay that way. He cant see what is going on and how people of all races, all aprties Dem,Rep, Left,Right are drawn to Ron Paul. I never followed Politics untill I was forced to because of what is going on. I read every thing I could about each GOPs and Obama. Ron Pauls endless life long fight for OUR rights is what woke me up. Ron Paul supporters are called every name in the book and made to look like they are crazy. They are ALL well educated in what is going on and that is why they support Ron Paul. People that are supporting Romney or Obama get there info from FOX CNN MNSBC…blah blah blah or they vote for them because they put them self in a box. “my dad was a republican or Dem, so I need to vote for whomever that gop is”. Get out of the box and be an American First. Do what is best for US. IN MY OPINION is ONLY Ron Paul

  12. Romney Bush Obama = the same Goldman sucks banker puppets. Stop watching Fox and CNN. If you cant see what is going on then you need to just go back to sleep.

  13. More Doug Thompson childish hasbara-spewing attention-seeking, this time, “uninformed” Paul supporters.
    Just like the European colonists were “uninformed” on bead-making to the natives, advanced thinking always appears “uninformed” to the narrow-minded.
    There is not ONE aspect of Dr. Paul’s PLATFORM that Thompson can criticize because if he DOES, he knows he’ll get destroyed, and this, with logic and common sense. It’s BECAUSE Paul supporters are informed that Thompson has to resort to criminal propaganda, bought-and-paid-for establishment sock-puppet that he is.
    “Racist newsletter”…that the even the MSM won’t touch anymore because even THEY know it’s bull. Have known for 20 years. They can’t make it stick. And that’s ALL they got! (guffaw)
    The earmark attack is even MORE pathetic since Paul is only recuperating HIS taxpayers surplus from the Executive Branch. Santorum got BURNED on national TV for it but now, lapdog Thompson is going to make it stick??? (knee-slapper)
    “Antisemitic”, “white supremacist”…look at the bottom of the barrel Thompson is scraping, patriot. Look at how desperate he is. (shakes in contempt)
    What a coward you are, Thompson. Way to sell out.

    • If I’m the coward how come you’re the one who doesn’t have the guts to use his full name. Who’s the coward here Reg? Try looking in the mirror.

      • My name is Matthe Heard Im from Kansas City, MO. Im a delegate for Ron Paul and yes Doug you are a coward and have no clue of what is going on today. Ron Paul is the GOP for we the people not big goverment that is destroying this country.

        • How exactly does stating an opinion and doing so under my own name make one a coward? That kind of convoluted logic may explain how you and others can support Ron Paul.

      • My name is Reggie Hanlon. Alabama.
        You’re a godless and treasonous coward, Thompson, for deliberately spewing criminal propaganda at your compatriots in favor of one world government fascist/communist warmongerers who are destroying this country as well as others around the world.
        You’re a traitor to the Republic by turning your back on the ONLY Constitutionalist in the field, the ONLY one who’s talking AMERICAN values and most importantly, the RULE OF LAW your masters fear so much.
        We PISS on your “antisemitic racist earmark” criminal propaganda, Thompson, ok?
        Keep cashing those checks, sock-puppet, and hope your masters take you with them down their hidey-holes once the People turn their attention towards the enemy-collaborators as is bound to eventually happen if History (that UNrevised by your masters of course) is any indication.
        (spits in contempt)

        • (snort)
          By “reporting”, you of course mean “spewing criminal propaganda” through misrepresentation, obfuscation, slander and outright fabrication, yeah, we know what you do, Thompson. You do what the rest of your bought-and-paid-for sock-puppet brethren do, because you’re cowards and traitors. That point was made clear, I think.
          Consider how you deflected and avoided ALL rebuttals (“racist earmarked antisemitism” as well as WHY you’re a coward, issues YOU attempted to contend with but dropped like a hot potato when patriots call your bluff) in order to continue building strawmen : “no full name = no solid argument, ‘credibility’ through repetition = “it’s not criminal propaganda; it’s ‘reporting’!”.
          But the ISSUES? Oh no, no-no-no, you can’t do THAT, can you, shill?
          C’mon, step up. Economy, foreign policy, domestic policy, role of government; we’ll rip you apart and you KNOW we’ll rip you apart.
          No, you just keep avoiding those issues and stick to spewing your masters’ “racist earmark” garbage, the same garbage that’s been discredited by even PROFESSIONAL propagandists in the MSM, ok?
          Because that’s all you’re good for.
          Godless lapdog, you make me sick.

  14. The sad part is, as uniformed and ideological as they are, by comparison they’re the most informed part of the GOP base that I’ve encountered recently. Smart people need to start voting in Primaries. Don’t hold your breath….

    • I might find something I liked if I thought, for a second, that he was real. I don’t like con artists — be they Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals or Libertarians.

      Paul’s views of the Fed would, in my view, create even more economic chaos in the world — a point where most economists, who seldom agree on anything, share a consensus.

      I think is misinterprets the Constitution in much the same way Christian ideologues misinterprets the Bible.

      It’s all part of the con.

      • I’ve read in your past articles that you think Ron Paul was trying to help Romney this whole time. If that is the case I have to ask you why he is still in the race then? It is obvious that him being in the race is making it harder for Romney. Would you admit now that wasn’t his goal to begin with please.

        • Please show me one article that I have written that suggests or even hints that Ron Paul is in the race to help Romney. You can’t because I never written such hogwash nor do I believe — even for a second — that Ron Paul is interesting in helping anyone but himself or anything but his bank account.

          • hmmm, maybe I am confusing you with someone else. It is either another author from the Hill or another guy named Doug. Either way, I still don’t see how you think that Romney or Obama are better choices. You have to give him credit that he is at least consistent in his policies compared to either of the other two. As far as if you think he is racist or homophobic I could really care less because he doesn’t try to force is personal views on me, he is a libertarian. Plus is number 1 money donor is a gay business man, Peter Thiel. If he doesn’t care than I don’t.

            • Let me see if I have this straight Larry. I don’t buy into the hype surrounding Ron Paul so I must think that Romney and/or Obama are better choices?

              This is why I find Ron Paul supporters long on hyperbole and short on depth. As my lawyer likes to say, you are “assuming facts not in evidence.”

              I have written that Obama is “the most monumental failure in Presidential history” and is “George W. Bush in black face.” I have written that Mitt Romney is “an empty suit devoid of character, philosophy or conviction.”

              Tell me Larry. Does this sound like a supporter of either of those two pretenders to the Presidency? I have called this year’s list of candidates (both surviving and past)the “worst, most pathetic crop of losers to ever contend for the Presidency.”

              Like most of you, believes that we can do better. I just don’t happen to think Ron Paul is the answer.

      • What about his voting record? Voted against the Iraq war, voted against tax increases, voted against an unbalanced budget. Firmly against the drug war. How are these not real positions? Please explain.

        • You asked about positions, not votes. In 22 years in Congress he has managed to vote on a few things I agree with but so have others who I also feel are not qualified to be President.

  15. Your hate for this man is unbelievable. I really wonder where it comes from. I sincerely hope that you let go of your hate because it is really unflattering and disappointing. I will personally never read another article you write.

    • Larry, I don’t hate Ron Paul. I don’t hate anyone. As a recovering alcoholic who has been sober 17 years, 10 months and 28 days I purged hate from my system and lifestyle long ago.

      I simply don’t think Ron Paul is honest. There are too many discrepancies, too many changed stores about his racist newsletters, too many questions about his hoarding of campaign contributions and then converting the leftover funds to other uses after his failed Presidential campaigns.

      And I question the leadership capabilities of a man who claims he couldn’t manage newsletters published under his name. How can such a failed manager lead or manage a nation?

      That my opinion and the column is clearly labeled an opinion — nothing more, nothing less. I have yet to see one shred of credible evidence that convinces me to change my opinion.

      • I am replying to your Ron Paul article. I just to address the claim that Ron Paul is a racist. Please take look at this, investigative report that tries to get to the bottom of the racist remarks. Quickly from what I remember.. Paul had newsletter for 20 years so roughly 240 newsletters were sent out. Out of those, I believe 5 of them contained racist remarks. The ones that quote. In addition, I believe 4 of them occur within a 6 month of and the last within 18 months. First, should ask yourself that if Paul was racist, wouldn’t you think that the distribution of racist new letters would be more abundant and also spread across time. So, should already being have some doubts that Paul wrote. He had small team of people and I believe the team changed over time. In investigation, a person is identified as the mostly writer of the newsletters. Paul is not racist and I don’t have time to go through your other claims, but I can prove that this is wrong, hopefully you will take the time to find more about the one. Here is video. The station is Fox 19. This is not Fox News. This is local Fox channel. The guy who does the investigation is actually pretty good and have subscribed to Facebook page. Although I watch Fox News to get all side of the story, I find Fox News to be horrendous. Hopefully you take the time to watch:

        Take care, Jim

  16. Ron Paul is the only one who wants to legalize drugs. No matter what your opinion is, you don’t have a right to control what drugs other persons use. If they OD, they OD. If they die, they die.

    Ron Paul wants to eliminate the federal income tax and that is fine with me. I prefer to keep my money.

    Ron Paul is also the only one who wants to follow the Constitution.

    • Ron Paul wants to eliminate the income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment and going back to collecting taxes as was done at the founding of the republic. That is batcrap crazy.

      The original method of taxation was the federal government taxed state governments according to their population; the states then taxed its citizens and businesses. If done today, states with lower incomes (i.e. Southern conservative states) would get clobbered and liberal states with incomes higher than the national average would coast along easily.

      The Sixteenth Amendment actually protects the people who hate it the most, and if you live in a conservative state you would not keep your money, you would have less of it.

Comments are closed.