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.