Ron's Hurdle: Foreign Policy

Over and over again, I hear the same and number one reason why men won't vote for Ron Paul. It is his foreign policy. I must admit, I had the exact same reservations until I started challenging my own assumptions that have been driven into me for decades. This is certainly true for Conservative Talk Radio.

Mark Belling was at it again. On today's program he repeats the anti-Ron Paul argument that Ron's foreign policy will help Iran nuke up and wage war around the world. Of course, he sounds exactly like a Britain trying to maintain Britain's sovereignty around the world during the American Revolution. We have to be the world's police man or the whole world will just got to pot. So we should repeat the British Empire's error?

Of course he argued mainly that Iran has been a in a State of War against the U.S. since it took over the Embassy in 1979. Never mind the fact the unstable/tyrannical government was installed by the U.S. in the first place! So let's exacerbate the situation in Iran by invading it too. In fact, let's do it again, without a declaration of war by Congress (which is a worthless rubber stamping institution).

Ron Paul's policy is the same as the Framers, which in my opinion, is far more conservative than engaging in a perpetual war around the world designed to empower the Federal government with more reasons to tax us in order to save us.

I agree with this post from Lew Rockwell's website:

Writes Dom Armentano:
"Our positions on foreign policy cannot be explained and understood in soundbites! Let me repeat something I suggested months ago: Ron MUST make a national television presentation on foreign policy. We may never be this close again."

I agree whole-heartedly. Ron Paul is on the verge is doing something great but he must overcome this massive hurdle and do so quickly and persuasively.

Who Is Conservative?

Mark Belling filled in for Rush today. Now I can't quote him verbatim, but basically he shot down every Republican candidate in the field as being problematic. Newt Gingrich is simply hated. Romney is an insider with no back-bone. Perry has performed poorly. And Ron Paul, well, Ron Paul is conservative only economically. In everything else, he is not conservative (whatever that means).

So between Rush and Mark, both are not liking that Ron Paul describes himself as a Conservative. Now I guess that is true...in a sense. Ron Paul is a Libertarian, but as many become confused, so are Rush and Mark. Simply because one is Libertarian does not mean one is a Left-Wing, morally liberal, relativist.

For instance, this weekend I was accused of saying that homosexuality is legitimate because of my more libertarian viewpoint. Now those of you that may read my more theologically driven blog know I am anything but Liberal when it comes to homosexuality. Simply because I differentiate the authority of the state to be able to kill people we don't like from what is morally permissible by God hardly makes me a Lib.

Rush likes to argue that Ron Paul doesn't have the right to redefine conservatism. Well, in this article, Ron Paul argues quite successfully that he holds the high ground by arguing historically to defend his position. This is why you will not see real debates between candidates.

Is breaking into your homes with guns and killing people in violation of the Fourth Amendment a conservative constitutional principle? Is waging a perpetual War on Drugs a killing countless lives (think Prohibition) and spending Billions of dollars a conservative constitutional principle? Is rewriting the National Defense Authorization Act so that the President can kill anyone he wants including Americans on American soil simply by labeling them a Terrorist a conservative constitutional principle? Is the President's ability to wage war with any nation without a Declaration of War by Congress as required in the Constitution a conservative constitutional principle? Is printing Trillions of dollars as done by both Bush and Obama a conservative constitutional principle? Is the government's right to steal your private property a conservative constitutional principle as seen done by both Republicans and Democrats? What about bureaucracies established by both Republicans and Democrats such as the FDA, IRS, EPA, on and on and on? Are they conservative constitutional principles?

We need real debates. If there were, thinking people would have to rethink their positions, and that is something the Republican establishment can't have. On with the Show Ponies they must continue.

Ron Paul Christmas Song

What If China Occupied Texas?

I'm still waiting for the Political Right to produce a single argument against this "radical" position?

Consistency: More Reasons To Elect Ron Paul

Townhall.com has yet another article on why Ron Paul is unelectable by Debra Saunders. She concludes:

He has picked up support on niche issues -- on the far right, his pledge to shutter the Transportation Security Administration; on the left, his supportive rhetoric on accused Wiki-leaker Bradley Manning. Paul has won support ranging from Timothy Leary's backyard in 1988 to traditional-values Iowans in 2011. He has core values. Alas, he has no middle.

But this is why Ron Paul should be considered and is also why Ron Paul is gaining, even if ultimately she's right. Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument. Ron Paul is simply being consistent. The reason this country is split over issues such as the War on Drugs or the assassination of an American citizen is because Government creates the Culture War in order to grow itself, and more and more people are beginning to see that.

Take, for example, a close friend, who will remain nameless. A year ago she would have argued for government's right to go get drug dealers by illegally searching homes at the cost of the Fourth Amendment. Recently, we watched PBS's program on Prohibition. She now sees that government simply grows because of people's willingness to give up freedom and liberty so that the government may fix some social problem. Of course, as we saw during Prohibition, government doesn't solve the problem, but only makes it worse and growing government to solve the bigger mess it keeps making. A spiraling problem if ever there was one.

This is precisely why more and more Americans are seeing Ron Paul as a viable candidate. For instance, she says,

Those views seemed extreme in 1988. They seem extreme now -- and are almost certain to make Paul unelectable in November. This is why I have not considered Paul to be a serious candidate.

So what views is she talking about?

Paul's platform also called for abolishing the income tax, dismantling the Internal Revenue Service and demolishing the post office.

WOW! Abolishing the Income Tax and IRS is radical? If Americans had to write their own check instead of their companies confiscating it for them, there would be another Revolution today. Yet, somehow, something that even Rush Limbaugh has argued in this direction to one degree or another is now "radical". Yet the only reason the Federal Government is able to become the Leviathan it is is through the Income Tax! Simply because Debra refuses to re-examine her inconsistent beliefs and Traditions is hardly a reason to maintain them. She is part of the thinking of the Ruling Elite that desires the culture war to perpetuate. After 24 years, I can now see, with Ron Paul, these perpetual wars are designed to never end, but only to grow government. It also seems to me that more and more Conservatives see their own inconsistencies and desire to move in the "radical" direction.

I have to wonder. If Debra lived during the American Revolution, would the views of someone who said, "Give me liberty or give me death." been too radical for her?

In conclusion, Ron Paul supporters are just Constitution loving people, who are waking up to their own inconsistencies. They are waking up to the fact we have been duped by the culture war into thinking we have to take one side or the other as if there was no other alternative. We are waking up to the fact that those two alternatives have been enshrined in such a manner as to give us the same candidates every 2-4-6 years, whether they be for central planning on the Right or the Left.

As my brother says, "America's Third Way, not Left, not Right, but America's Third Way."

Update

UPDATE! Justin Raimondo has written an excellent piece at Taki's Magazine refuting many of the claims made or repeated by Hawkins. It clearly demonstrates that Hawkins and others are simply repeating and not investigating first hand the quotes he has offered out of context.

Twelves Arrows For Ron Paul, Merry Christmas

John Hawkins has written yet another post at TownHall.com explaining why if Ron Paul were to win the Republican Nomination, Republicans would lose to President Obama. In fact, this chant is being repeated so often among Republican elites that even Rush Limbaugh on his radio program has repeated it, even though he has stated many times prior to the rise of Ron Paul in the polls, that a complete idiot could beat Obama.

But we have to ask, "Why?" Why is Ron Paul so easily beatable? Every where I go, I see Liberals, who are angry with Obama and see him as the evil anti-civil liberties person that he is, leaning to Ron Paul. Fiscally, Ron Paul is the only candidate who would actually do what Republican candidates say they would do. Therefore, Ron Paul would actually get support from both sides! Talk about uniting the country for liberty!

So let's examine Hawkins arguments.

First he explains to us that,

I'd be content to ignore Paul, too, except for the fact that there's an outside chance he could win Iowa, which is of course, perfectly ridiculous. Why is that ridiculous?

So why is it "ridiculous"? Well, here it goes.

Ron Paul is absolutely, unconditionally unelectable. By that, I mean that Barack Obama would have a genuine shot to beat Ron Paul in all 50 states, including Texas and Utah. If Hillary Clinton ran as a third party candidate, Obama would still probably take more than 40 states against Paul. If Obama DIED with 3 months left in the election and his campaign was suspended, he'd PROBABLY STILL beat Paul by a margin larger than the one he had against McCain in 2008.

Now here it comes. The big reason we should all bow down to and say, "Gee, thanks for reminding me of how stupid I am."

"Let me tell you exactly what Barack Obama’s strategy with Ron Paul would be. He would run a devastating negative campaign against Paul that would paint him as a kooky dangerous crank. Incidentally, his look fits right into that meme. Squeaky voice, odd, rambling speech pattern, weird head and arm movements, ill fitting suit..."

Really? This is the first big reason. The President might actually run a negative campaign against him? Really!!!! Am I supposed to believe the opponent on Ron Paul, who is the sitting President, might actually run a negative campaign against his opponent for President? What the heck is Rush Limbaugh doing? We haven't seen negative until he wins Iowa, and that negative campaign will be coming from Republicans like...say...John Hawkins.

But Hawkins does something that he would never allow a Democrat do. He simply cites 12 quotes as reason enough for Ron Paul to be considered a "kook". Now notice that if a Democrat were to use this form of argumentation (which isn't really an argument), he would counter the Democrat by saying you must deal with the substance of the quotes. Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument. Hawkins is most certainly inconsistent. He simply hopes that you will be so offended by these quotes that you will shut down your brain and cease from thinking through what is the actual substance.

For the sake of argument, I will offer a rebuttal to one quote so that it may be seen that Hawkins is appealing to his base's inability to be rational. Here is reason #6:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

My rebuttal is simply this. Even Rush Limbaugh has said similar things on his Radio Show. But even more importantly, the first time I had heard this argument in the form of private property rights was from Walter Williams, A BLACK MAN, who filled in on Rush Limbaugh's program!

We did lose liberty by the War of Northern Aggression. It was DC that caused a huge amount of racial tensions in the South. It was DC, by forcing people to use their private property in ways they did not want to that has inflamed racism. By doing this, they have caused a perpetual culture war that has been prolonged to this very day. Of course, as Walter Williams pointed out, this is how government grows in its power, through perpetual wars.

So in conclusion, Hawkins can keep his mindless base fed with such nonsensical arguments, or rather "quotes". But he will never go after the substance of the arguments. So basically Ron Paul is un-electable because they say so because they would hate to lose their power to someone who actually loves liberty and will seek to restore the Federal Government back to its Constitutional framework.

The "long knives" are out, but they are out for the "kook", who loves liberty.

Rush Fears Ron Paul

Rush Limbaugh is obviously nervous about Ron Paul. He has been taking every opportunity to make certain he doesn't win the Republican nomination. On today's radio show he once again referred to Ron as the crazy uncle that is kept in the basement. Just two quick points I'd like to point out.

First, Rush considers it un-Patriotic to want to bring all of the troops from oversees home. Now think about this for a second. Rush constantly talks about the Federal government as a nuisance. An evil agent that constantly tries to take away our freedoms by meddling in our everyday affairs. Yet somehow, having bases with military personnel all throughout the world is not meddling in other nation's affairs? Somehow, as Rush always says, America is not the problem when it comes to invading the privacy of people oversees, but it is a problem within our nation's borders? Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.

Second, Rush wants us to vote for one of the other Republican nominees. In fact, he doesn't seem to care which one, just as long as they are Republican. But as he confessed in today's program about Nikki Haley:

If she wants to be in somebody's cabinet someday -- a Republican -- she's going to have to do what the Republicans want her to do.  If you are a mid-level sales manager for the XYZ Widget Company and you want to someday be in the executive suite, you are damn well going to do what the XYZ executive suite people tell you to do. (interruption) But no, but no. (interruption)  Snerdley says I didn't, but I created my own executive suite, see? I did not try to take over anybody else's.  That's not realistic.  We're not gonna create a new party.  We don't even want to try to do that.  That's wilderness time.  The Republican Party is something that's gonna have to fought for and taken over by the Tea Party.  It's gonna be an active political objective and process.

So which is it? The definition of insanity is to keep repeating a particular thing expecting different results. I have been voting for Republicans for 20 years. Yet I am told EVERY time to expect different results.

Yet here Rush indirectly admits that the Republican nominees will have to do what the Republican establishment tells them to do. Does anyone doubt Mitt Romney (and the rest) is a show pony? So why should I vote for any of these establishment phonies? Rush has offered no reason other than they are "better" than Obama (whatever that means).

No more. Seeking to be consistent, either we agree that big meddling government is wrong for both us and the world, or we want big meddling government for us and the world. As far as I can see, Rush refuses to deal with Ron's actual arguments. Calling him a nut isn't enough to change my mind.

Newt: Selling Access

I don't know who is making these ads, but I hope they keep pumping them out. I hope also that we get some ads against Romney as well.

Romney Is the Spin Doctor

One of the top Drudge Report News stories is a comment from Mitt Romney about our "entitlement society".

Some people believe that "instead of a merit-based society we should be an entitlement based society," Romney told the crowd of about 100 people on hand, adding that people in that mindset want everyone to essentially receive the same things, and said if that happens, "We'll have the certainty that we're all pretty close to equal. But we'll also have the certainty that we're all poor. Because what drives an economy is people pursuing their dreams."

Now isn't that rich. A man, who orchestrated the Massachusetts health care system, which is exactly what Obama's plan is based upon, is telling us we all have a poor "mindset". I think his mind is lost in his politics. Of course, when you're a puppet of Big Corporations in a kind of "soft fascist" relationship, it is easy to understand that he lives in an alternative universe. The problem is that I don't want to live in it.

Ron Paul Is the Big Dog

Jon Stewart Exposes American Terrorists

For those of you who don't know, our Congress has decided the 4th Amendment is no longer valid.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Jon Stewart on the Coming Imprisonment of American strikeDissidents/strike Terrorists

Jon Stewart on the Coming Imprisonment of American strikeDissidents/strike Terrorists

Why Am I Voting?

A caller on Rush's program lamented that he was going to vote for a Republican candidate even though there wasn't one that he cared for. Right now, the caller was favoring Newt Gingrich, but Rush responded to what his true motivation was.

RUSH:  See, here's what you're telling me -- and what you're telling me not all bad.  You're gonna vote whoever wins the nomination.  You are not going to sit out because really this is about Obama.  I wouldn't worry about your disappointment.  You're obviously unable to really get ignited about any of these people, but that's okay because what does ignite you is Obama, and that's what this election's going to be. It's gonna be a referendum on Obama, and any one of these people on our side would be a 100% to 200% improvement -- and of that you can be confident, and they can also win.  Don't listen to these know-nothings who tell you that X doesn't have a shot.  They don't know what they're talking about.  It's asinine.

I have to wonder. How can anyone be really motivated by someone such as Newt, who will say anything to become President and do the very things that have created this mess, even if the pace he sets is slower towards destruction? In my opinion, people intuitively know everyone is bad. Do Republicans really want to legitimize their power by a vote against someone else?

Basically we are not voting for anyone if we vote for typical Republicans. So why vote at all. Perhaps letting them know we don't believe them at all is even better since they need to think we are all a bunch of dopes and fools that believe them. Why not de-legitimize both parties and vote for none of the above.

Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy

A video that expresses what I have thought of Newt for a log time. It never ceases to amaze me that the Political Right Pundits call Ron Paul a "kook" while they support this Republican establishment that lies, cheats and steals from us blind.

Vote for a real man of integrity. Vote for Ron Paul.