Doesn't the buck stop here?

We expect Eric Holder to pony up and take responsibility for Fast & Furious (yet he now is playing the 'race card' ducking responsibility), but that's another story.

Now Ron Paul expects people to ignore the money he made off these news letters, to believe he never read them, and disavows their message.

Is it not you're responsibility to investigate what a Newsletter, published using YOUR NAME, is saying?? That you're just going to ignore them knowing full well they exist?

Yet it appears that may be exactly what is going on here.



Details are in the following story from the Blaze.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IS RON PAUL CHANGING HIS STORY ON WHAT HE KNEW ABOUT THOSE NEWSLETTERS?
by Madeleine Morgenstern

GOP candidate Ron Paul is again under fire for incendiary racial statements mailed out under his name in the late 1980s and 1990s, though a past interview appears to be at odds with the Texas congressman’s most recent declaration that he knew nothing about the inflammatory comments at the time.

On Wednesday, the Texas congressman walked out of a CNN interview after correspondent Gloria Borger asked him about the content of the newsletters, which were called “Ron Paul’s Political Report,“ ”Ron Paul’s Freedom Report,“ the ”Ron Paul Survival Report“ and the ”Ron Paul Investment Letter.” When the issue was raised in 2008, Paul said he didn’t write everything that appeared in the newsletters, though they bore his name.

Among some of the writings were statements that said, “Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal“ and ”If you’ve ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.”

Paul denied Wednesday having written the statements, and said he didn’t know about them at the time.

“It’s 22 years ago. I didn‘t write ’em, I disavow ‘em, that’s it,” he told CNN. “I never read that stuff, I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written.”

But those statements appear to be at odds with comments Paul made to the Dallas Morning News in 1996 when he was running for Congress and defended the writings, saying they were taken out of context.

“These aren’t my figures,” Paul said of the statement that 95 percent of the black males in D.C. are criminals. “That is the assumption you can gather” from a 1992 study from a criminal justice think tank.

He similarly did not refute the “fleet of foot” statement, which also appeared in 1992.

“If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” he told the newspaper.

And in a 1995 interview with C-SPAN, unearthed by Andrew Kaczynski, Paul discussed his 10-year hiatus from Congress and what he had been doing in the private sector, among them putting together “a political type of business investment newsletter” — touting it three years after those statements appeared.



“It covered a lot about what was going on in Washington, and financial events, and especially some of the monetary events,” Paul said. “Since I had been especially interested in monetary policy, had been on the banking committee, and still very interested in, in that subject, that this newsletter dealt with it.”

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey observed, “For a man who now says that he didn’t pay any attention to the newsletters published under his own name for years, he certainly seems to be pretty conversant with its contents in 1995.”

The hidden impact of Unions on its members.

While listening to talk radio, I heard a caller complain to the host about his anti-union stance. The caller was a 767 pilot working for American Airlines. His complaint was that he felt the host was painting Unions with the same brush which he felt was inaccurate and proceeded to explain why. He spoke of the financial troubles American Airlines had in the past and of how the pilot union and service workers agreed to sacrifice their incomes, ie a pay cut, to allow American Airlines to survive and the plan worked. Yet when things improved, upper mismanagement proceeded to take bonuses with no consideration towards making the union workers whole given their previous sacrifice.

Given such a scenario, anyone would agree that such a move clearly demonstrates selfishness and greed, and should be condemned from a moral standpoint.

Yet this is where Unions create their own problem by just existing. Given any non-union company, such a move would drive workers to consider work elsewhere, causing the company to suffer and possibly fail due to the loss of productivity. Meanwhile, job transfers are executed based on skills and experience. If you are a VP at one company, you aren’t pushed down in seniority to the level of a mailboy just because you decided to make a move. The same, however, is not true of union workers where any such move to another company would place that person at the bottom of the pecking order, losing pension status, seniority, and wages. So for all intents and purposes, Union jobs become a lifelong commitment to a single company or organization, where both must learn to function well together or they both go down with the ship. It also creates an atmosphere where each side adopts the suicidal attitude that the other side could not possibly survive with their cooperation, giving each a false sense of power, yet it is this very power, that when executed, can easily destroy the company altogether, as is currently occurring with American Airlines.

But the issue goes even deeper. To run a company fit to survive in a Capitalist environment, wages and benefits must determined by what the market dictates, and the hiring and firing of employees must be determined by management based on need and performance, not by the Union. This allows the company act at peak efficiency if properly managed or the company will lose qualified workers and/or its competitive edge.

When Union shops are introduced, benefits, wages, hiring and firing are determined by the Union with little to no consideration towards efficiency or to what the market can bear.
As a result, such companies are usually plagued with employing a percentage of workers who are poor performers, and benefits and wages can easily impair the company's ability to compete in the market place due to the inability to control costs or quality, which is what occurred with General Motors.

Unions tend to see themselves as necessary in order to protect the livelihood of their workers, yet in actuality, those workers would be much better off if they could function in a world free of unions, where they could seek the best pay, the best bosses, the best co-workers, staying clear of companies that don’t boast such assets, forcing those companies to fall in line with the rest of the market or fail, allowing the preferred companies and their environments to survive and be sought after as role models for other companies.