Sunday, February 13, 2011

In Defense of Ron Paul

It is no mystery that I am an avid Ron Paul supporter. So as I read the latest "rush to judgment" complete with all of the labeling and derogatory talk- rather than argue along skirmish lines in various comment boxes- I thought I'd make my presence felt here. So what happened?

Let's start with the "Young Americans for Freedom" and their site. The YAF has decided to "purge" Ron Paul from their advisory board.  http://www.yaf.com/blog_post/show/57

Some more vitriol here: http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/publius-forum/2011/02/cpac-2011-ron-pauls-last-straw-with-yaf-time-for-paulies-to-grow-up.html

At issue here, is that apparently Ron Paul does not see a need to bomb everyone back to the stone age. This is a complex issue that involves more than nationalistic philosophy. It involves life, death, gobs of money, and interestingly enough, core values and party tenets. There are a whole host of mitigating circumstances that are involved in anyone's rendered opinions and beliefs. Sometimes, if given the opportunity- what doesn't make sense at first blush makes perfect sense after an explanation is offered. Sometimes, we even change our minds completely. Churchill once said, "I reserve the right to change my mind just as often as the facts change." I've tried it and it works.

So Ron Paul doesn't think we should fight every war? Forgive me if I don't think that's particularly egregious. So Ron Paul thinks that maybe we are partly to blame for the mideast's hatred of the west? Everything we've done there is God approved? Let's just kill critical thought and bury it now. We have no need to self examine or practice rigorous honesty for any of our deeds. The crooked Shah, Bin Laden, WMD's, invasions, killing a few thousand innocents here or there, extorting oil. And some guy has the audacity to question whether we should be doing things like that? I'll tell you how nuts I am, that actually sounds like responsible thinking to me.

Paul's statements border on treason? Has the YAF completely left the rails? Also clipped from the site: Young Americans for Freedom is the nation’s oldest, largest, and most active conservative - libertarian youth organization. The key word there is libertarian.

Let's start with the basics. Ron Paul is a straight shooter and a doctor. His basic philosophy for 40 years has not changed and probably pre-dates the infancy of the YAF and it's membership. He has been involved in no scandals. I am sure his presence on the YAF Board was done free of charge or in some honorary fashion. His voting record does not waver and the last time I checked- he always lands #1 on conservative voting tallies.

Conservative voting means not pissing away money. So just how much does our government spend per year on foreign affairs? Any guesses YAF? 1.1 trillion per year. http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/15/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-us-spends-1-trillion-foreign-policy/

The YAF claims to be a libertarian organization? Really? From the Libertarian party platform, a refresher.


3.3    International Affairs
American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should
emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding
foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention,
including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and
defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of
terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by
political or revolutionary groups.

Wow. What a piece of lunacy that is. We recognize the sovereign rights of all people.

On another site, a writer adds that Paul could run as a Libertarian- that it is disingenuous to run as a Republican. To that I reply simply- these two mongrel dog parties have done everything short of killing to prevent a viable third party. They have a complete monopoly and stranglehold on the voting public which they apply with a death grip. They are populated with members, that neither adhere to or maintain platform tenets under which they run. RINO's and DINO's, swinging in the breeze- willing to cross any issue line if they see it is politically expedient and will further their re-election goals. They speak and vote dishonestly.

The most stable and predictable member of both parties and Congress is Ron Paul. What I am saying simply- is that Paul's voting record is honest. Truthful in a day and age when no politician dare utter the truth. Politicians habitually lie. Because if they take a stand, perhaps even an unpopular one, somebody like the YAF will throw the baby out with the bathwater. Example given.

There will never ever be a politician who agrees with everything we want. But there are candidates who can breach a 90% level or better. Paul is that guy for me. To castigate someone who is adhering to party tenets simply because some group wants to practice nationalism rather than patriotism defies belief. The allegations are misrepresented...in fact...specific allegations or alleged statements aren't even addressed on the YAF or anywhere else. Apparently the YAF has formed some assumption and collective belief and rendered their judgment. So what due process has the YAF afforded Mr. Paul? Maybe a hearing, a Q and A session? How about a public vote with Mr. Paul present? Or do you operate like our President does...canning Inspector Generals behind veiled curtains using anonymous middlemen? Is that how it is?

Welcome to the national insanity and past time. Attack, ridicule, and label the best that we have. Toss them out because they don't agree with your brand of how the money gets spent on one solitary issue. Marginalize them for uttering an "opinion" or questioning some assumption that you believe is true. Never consider the possibility they might be "right." But then you aren't really interested in hearing from him, are you?

Here's the way I see it. The YAF is just another group practicing mob culture. I have seen nothing that indicates any sense of fair play occurred here. We used to have a sense of fair play in this country. Where people were entitled to explain themselves and were given an opportunity to explain their thought processes. That system was civil and had value because we knew one day, it might be us getting tossed out and embarrassed. Back then a fair process mattered because it just seemed like the right thing to do. I am not seeing that here.

2 comments:

Cheryl Pass said...

Yes...you laid out your defense here. I'm not sure what exactly it is that makes Ron Paul supporters so intense, but you are intensely loyal to him, that is obvious. As I said in my article, Brian, I don't disagree with everything Ron Paul says or stands for...but I do disagree with him on the very critical issue of our military. The issue of our military policies is not inconsequential...but vital, so it isn't as if this is a small side issue. Since the President of the U.S. is the Commander in Chief of our military, the job requires a serious understanding of how complicated the world has become. I think Ron Paul has a simplistic idea of a small defensive force that, I believe, is too simplistic and too small to protect our nation and our interests, not to mention protecting our allies. I do not disagree with you that the U.S. has made some mistakes in foreign relations with regard to the middle east..but we have, at great expense, held off the Muslim Caliphate for 60 or 70 yrs. post WWII. It appears we are not ultimately successful in that effort, but we tried. It was exactly our efforts to maintain peace and or stability that you are now griping about? What would you have done differently? Sometimes you work with the hand you are given...

I don't believe I ridiculed Ron Paul in my article. I merely stated my differences of opinion with him and why I think as I do. I also lamented the idea that the Republican Party seems so fractured with groups and candidates on both of ends of the spectrum and...if the Republican Party cannot define itself clearly we are not likely to get candidates who can promote a clear definable platform. I grant you that Ron Paul is clear...he states unequivocally what Libertarian policies he promotes. The Party, however, is not 100% behind him, any more than the Party is behind the RINOs....so what we have is a mishmash of candidates with diametrically opposed ideas....
this in the face of fierce opposition from a Democrat Party that is 99% Socialist.
I have no knowledge of the YAF at all, so I cannot address that of which you speak here.

There are two subjects I have discussed in the history of my blog that seem to bring out the most incensed reactions. One is the fair tax and the other is Ron Paul. For some reason these two subjects are highly combustible and inflammatory for those who promote them. Makes me wonder....

Thanks for the discussion, Brian.

Brian said...

Thanks Cheryl. I agree with your points and please don't take anything personally. It's ok to have a civil exchange and disagreement. I mean no ill will.

I think the Paul issue becomes so combustible because Paul is so incredibly transparent. Translate that to honesty. RFK said to pay attention to what a man does, not what he says. That litmus test is a good one and applied to Paul, the results are very good.

Many of us believe that the FED is the greatest threat to national and worldwide security there is. They are wreaking economic havoc on the world. That Paul is the lone voice on an issue that the vast majority of Americans simply do not understand- the never ending debt/slavery policies of the FED- gives us a sliver of hope.

My adamant support for Paul has much more to do with his knowledge of the FED than any of the other issues of the day. That I consider the FED the greatest domestic and foreign terrorist organization there is, floats Paul to the top of my list. Most lay people think that criticism of the FED is insane, as I once did. It wasn't until I started digging that I discovered otherwise. The great polymath, Thomas Jefferson, predicted this would happen if central bankers were allowed to control the currency.

I have never overestimated TJ's intelligence, foresight, and wisdom. I am not sure it's possible. Thanks for the civil exchange. You do good work!

Brian