Is Ron Paul a Racist?
If Ron Paul is not a racist, he is certainly terrible at picking employees and colleagues. Paul’s excuse for the bigoted, homophobic comments in the much-discussed “Ron Paul Newsletter” of some years ago is that he didn’t write them himself. Someone else did.
But who chose those others to work with him on the “Ron Paul Newsletter”? Who vetted the writers and editors of the very articles with those horrific statements? Well, one must assume, Ron Paul.
That inability to select even marginally acceptable (non-racist) employees and colleagues should, on the face of it, disqualify Paul as a candidate for president of the United States. Can you imagine such a myopic individual, such a poor judge of character, choosing justices for the Supreme Court, not to mention myriad other important positions?
But that’s giving Paul the best of it. Occam’s Razor tells us Paul knew perfectly well the kind of tripe his minions were writing (if he didn’t write it himself), just as Barack Obama — despite his protestations — knew perfectly well the kind of bilge that Jeremiah Wright was spewing. In fact, they went along with it for much the same reason — political expediency — although Paul arguably believed the despicable remarks in his newsletters more than Obama ever believed Wright’s excrescences. After all, Paul’s writings (including solicitation letters) went out under his own name.
Still, the Paulites are saying, that was years ago. Give it a rest.
That’s hard because the problem runs far deeper and has contemporary ramifications. Paul’s racial bias is more complex and intense than what has already been alleged of his attitudes towards blacks and Jews. He thinks even less of Muslims. He treats the Islamic world as if they do not have views of their own, their own ideology. In essence, he does not take them seriously as people and claims their actions are largely a result of American (and presumably Western) imperialistic behavior.
In other words, Muslims are children who could not possibly have the beliefs they do of their own accord and choose to act on those beliefs. They only do what they do because of us.
Besides being ethnocentric in the extreme, this negates many centuries of history — the majority of which took place before the U.S. even existed — and an entire, highly evolved system of religious, philosophical, and social thought. Whether Paul does this out of ignorance or arrogance I am not sure, but his disregard of Islam as something to be taken seriously in and of itself is particularly stunning when that ideology is close to the most antithetical imaginable to Paul’s self-proclaimed libertarianism.
This was a vitally important question crying out for a clear answer. Thank you for giving it in the affirmative.
If you were on Obama’s campaign team, could you invent anything better than Ron Paul?
Think about it. He is like an IED in the middle of the Republican primaries:
- racist
- extemist on virtually every issue. Some to the left. Others to the right.
- probably will run as a 3rd party candidate
- has zero legislative accomplishments to his credit
- absolutely refuses to compromise on anything
- makes Obama look like a foreign affairs hawk
- he advocates every brain-dead conspiracy theory ever invented
- an annoying crank who reminds everybody of their wierdest uncle
- his followers make maddog marxists look calm and rational
He’s Obama’s fantasy opponent. But more importantly, he can hand the election to Obama by going 3rd party.
I’m wondering who has funded him for the last 20 years, because it sure is convenient that he and his maniacal follower have crawled out of the woodwork at this point in time. And how many of the nutjob followers are republicans anyway?
He’s the same crank he was in 2008. People got all panic-stricken about him and a 3rd party run then, and it didn’t happen, because the crazy uncle is having the time of his life stirring people up, but doesn’t mean a word of it.
I know people are alarmed by his followers. But – and this is crucial – they’re not the same kids as in 2008. They’re a new set of idiots. So can we all calm down.
There’s a difference this year.
Obama
In every election before this one (except 1860), nobody thought the fate of the country was at stake. This time, I do, and I’m not alone.
It isn’t about the crackpot. In normal times, nobody would care about what he or his deluded groupies think about anything. They are just fringe kooks who enjoy saying outrageous things. It’s not about them. It’s about Obama.
Exactly. It is 1860 all over again.
The news is not all bad.
1) First the midterms in 2010 IMHO were more important to the fate of the country. If the Dems kept the House it would have signified a hopelessly corrupted electorate. That they were utterly defeated indicates Americans can learn from their mistakes.
2) The Republicans are almost certain to take the Senate, so Obama’s ability to do damage will be severely restricted. There is also the possibility of impeachment.
3) If Obama takes the Presidency again it will be due to a third party or a Republican nominee so repulsive a lot of voters will stay at home. He won’t come close to majority support. Again limiting his ability to do damage.
4) Those things he does do, like losing wars and allies and wrecking the economy, will further awaken his supporters, still at 44% of the electorate, to just how hideous leftist leadership truly is.
Conclusion, the world and the US will suffer because of miserable US leadership, and the result will inevitably be economic chaos and bloodshed, but a discredited president, a discredited ideology and a Republican controlled congress will limit the damage. Of course, I am assuming the Israelis take out the Iranian bomb. If Iran gets nukes, then yes the fate of the US is at skate.
i agree with you pro
when i think of libertarianism i think of milton friedman and ron paul rarely sounds like milton friedman ever
he gets sidetracked easily and is a broken record on the “mysterious Fed” and “utopian gold standards” and rarely, if ever, demonstrates the simple yet extremely powerful discrepancies between free-markets and statism– the key to defeating the marxists
i believe ron paul is much the puppet as barack obama and the similarities between the acolytes of both are too glaring to ignore
hypothetically speaking, if ron paul gets elected to be our president his supposed free-market principles will get tied up by the entrenched collectivists yet his suicidal foreign policy will easily be hijacked/implemented by the leftists in our midst who seek to destroy our country
Libertarians insist they must stand by Ron Paul because he is bringing libertarian ideas into the mainstream. It is quite the contrary. Congressman Paul as representative of a reasonable goal such as eliminating the IRS tarnishes the idea. Now everyone who wants to audit the Fed will be considered just another raving, paranoid Paulian. If Libertarians want their ideas taken seriously they have to start with denouncing the whack job who has hijacked Libertarianism and taken it on his runaway train.
Ron Paul told supporters, “If I were an Iranian, I’d like to have a nuclear weapon, too, because you gain respect from them. (Israel)”
FROM: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/12/ron-paul-if-i-were-an-iranian-id-like-to-have-nuclear-weapons-too-because-you-gain-respect-from-them-israel/
On January 5, 2009 Ron Paul conducted an interview with Iranian state owned English language propaganda channel, Press TV, where he urges ending support of Israel, defends Hamas and tactics of suicide bombing, states that Hamas is innocent and the Israeli state are the aggressors. “To me I look at it like it’s a concentration camp, and people are making bombs, like, they’re the aggressors?”
FROM: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/12/flashback-ron-paul-goes-on-iranian-tv-bashes-israel-and-defends-hamas-video/
Generally speaking, I believe not only Muslims but the entire Third World is “ignorant, backwards, and incapable of competing with us on this tiny globe.”
So color me a racist although if Finland outproduces the entire Middle East I may be simply observing something actual and real. Or perhaps it’s the 700 shanty towns in Rio or school buses darting around Guatemala carrying adults on decrepit dirt roads or any one of a thousand things I’ve seen in 7 years in 15 of those countries.
However your main point is well taken: too many people look at their history not from the point of view of what they themselves do but what others do to them. In other words, a manufactured excuse factory for failure in which they put themselves forward as hapless puppets.
I’ve never been to Rio, so I’ve never seen the shanty towns, but I did read this week that Brazil has passed Great Britain in GDP rank.
I have seen American shanty towns, though. I was once a municipal employee, and spent all of my working days in the inner city of Baltimore, my home town. I understand that the people in the Rio shanty towns might find American inner city life a step up in some ways, but regardless of the relative amenity levels, it is still the same.
Simon has it exactly backwards. Paul treats the Islamic world as disparate groups of adults in states that don’t need the United States to give them cash and to tell them how to live.
The bilge spewed against Ron Paul on this site is increasing in frequency and hysteria, but it’s getting internally inconsistent. Am I supposed to believe Ron Paul is racist and arrogant and responsible for his actions, or is he a paranoid looney, incapable of handling his own and the country’s affairs? Please get your stories straight and let me know.
Paul’s fidelity to Constitutional principles is clear and speaks for itself. Unable to challenge him on the record, PJMedia is bravely ignoring the evidence and taking the lead in charging Ron Paul with thought crimes. I look forward to the next episode.
Simon’s point is simply this: why does Dr. Paul insist that the actions against us are necessarily our fault and not, as many other people have observed (e.g. Jonah Goldberg in “Liberal Fascism”) their own reaction to what and who we are and not controllable by us?
Didn’t Bin Laden use U.S. troop placement in Saudi Arabia as justification for his jihad against America?
Read the book “Imperial Hubris” for the foreign policy mindset of RP.
As for Ron’s supposed racist comments or comments made by writers of his newsletter; we all to often call a person racist for not being PC. If someone said the LA Riots broke up because the welfare checks came out that day, well, is that racist for making an observation? Could it have played a factor? Yes, it could have. If I gave you a statistic on black males in jail, facts, is that racist? No, it is not. Political correctness is a tool of the Marxists
“Am I supposed to believe Ron Paul is racist and arrogant and responsible for his actions, or is he a paranoid looney, incapable of handling his own and the country’s affairs?”
Well, yes RP is a racist, he is arrogant and like all adults he’s responsible for his actions. And yes he is also a paranoid looney – who while I suppose is capable of handling his own affairs – is not up to the task of handling the affairs of the most powerful nation on earth.
Paul revers the U.S. Constitution about as much as Stalin did the Soviet Constitution.’It’s pretty clear if you actually read ANYTHING that he’s written over the past 30 years or so.
This is as good an explanation as any. It is sad the MSM has been allowed to make Ron Paul the face of Libertarianism. It seems he has been living within the same world view for so long that he no longer improves his thinking, just takes easy short cuts. Some work, some are horribly wrong. How can Libertarians find a better front man?
More on the LaLaLand of Libertarianism:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/to_get_ron_paul_you.html
I’m Sorry, but this website has lost it’s right to call anything but kkk hood wearing and swastika bearing nuts racists. You idiots shout down any other person trying to point out actual racism and then claim how the pc liberal media has brainwashed everyone into believing in made up racism. Well now the pot is calling the kettle black. You nuts have no substantive criticism of anything so you spout this pseudo-intellectual nonsense to get your point across. Your candidates suck, Roger! They are the worst representation of our country possible; get over it! I’m not even that big a Ron Paul fan but he is spot on about foreign policy.
Jazzy – are you serious that Ron Paul is ‘spot on’ about foreign policy? What do you mean by this? I know you are young student, undergrad, with little reading and critical thinking skills – (and having to support two children, whew) but you should provide evidence for your assertions.
Do you mean RP’s assertion that 9/11 was due to ‘US interference in the ME’? You could only make that statement if you were ignorant of the rise of an industrial economy, the movt from rural to urban, the exponential increase in population – and the refusal to move out of a tribal (two class) political and economic structure. Are you aware of these issues? Are you aware of the conflict between tribalism and a civic mode in the ME? Are you aware of the rise of Al Qaeda in the 19th c? I suggest you read Wright’s ‘The Looming Tower’ for a good outline.
Do you mean RP’s assertion that isolation is the best foreign policy? Are you unaware that the world is no longer functioning as self-sufficient nation-states but as a complex global network? I’d suggest you read Castell’s, The Rise of the Network Society’.
Opinions require substantiation – otherwise, as I always tell my students, they belong in the coffee shop. Blogs aren’t coffee shops; they are sites for rational discussion.
Amen. That’s great advice.
Plenty of CIA and ex-military intelligence folks agree with Paul. I’ve posted it all on other PJM smear-pieces.
Nobody ever responds… so I stopped trying.
I do not understand the loyalty to the party that gave us Bush’s 2nd term and McCain candidacy. The same Bush that promoted the subprime mortgage lending programs, and both supported the bank bailouts; a true disgrace to this country. The same McCain that championed the effort to ban UFC / MMA fighting.
Republican party is a parody of itself – Suffering from Paul-Derangement-Syndrome. But don’t waste time attacking me, it’s either RP or GJ for this guy. I won’t abandon my conservative principles.
Does your “complex global network” require U.S. troops to be stationed on foreign soil? Because that’s the justification Al Qaeda has used for their jihad against the U.S. As someone who has spent quite a bit of time in the ME and elsewhere, I can assure it isn’t American ideals that are despised. Its our high handed interventionism.
You said:
Opinions require substantiation
———-
Your substantiations lack substance. You posit vacuous opinions as self evident.
You found the opinions vacuous. Why?
If substantiating opinions is the axis along which you choose to criticize, then I assume you will also live under its hegemony. So please substantiate YOUR opinions
“Your substantiations lack substance. You posit vacuous opinions as self evident.”
What on Earth are you talking about? He asks perfectly reasonable questions & makes statements backed up by references to two different books. Waddya want, egg in your beer with the foam in the middle? LOL.
he’s absolutely right about 9/11. i’ve heard of no al-qaeda attacks against a nation that was not allied with the US in the “war on terror.” First US, then Spain, then England. Why not Sweden or France?
Hey ETAB! Are you aware how much of a condescending a-hole you are? Probably not. Let me explain. You speak in your lofty language, so sure of yourself because you are older, yet you allow common sense to elude you. Your positions are so weak you reflexively counter those who disagree with you with ad hominem attacks. You make baseless assertions, and you use cute dictionary words but don’t really say anything of real importance.
This silly tripe littered with red-herrings, false equivalents, non-sequiturs and straw men has nothing to do with what Ron Paul advocates. What does any of what you posted have to do with the other?
Here is a simple question: do you think actions have consequences?
Reflect on that, old fool.
As reported (numerous sources) some Paul’s largest ‘Organized’ support groups are the KKK and American Nazi’s. THEY really like what he has to say.
So what is the problem? If Ron Paul runs against B. Obama we can have our choice of RACISTS.
“Paul arguably believed the despicable remarks in his newsletters more than Obama ever believed Wright’s excrescences.”
I think you are being terribly unfair to Barack Obama here. There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that he did not and does not fully believe every single vile utterance that his pastor of 20 years has made.
If he did not—if, indeed, Barack Obama had even the rudiments of a moral compass of his own—he could not have gone from the church of a man who reprinted Hamas screeds in the church newsletter to accepting the support of Hamas phonebanks in the course of his run for the presidency, to his current pressuring of Israel to release terrorist Marwan Barghouti so that Barghouti can run for a position in the “Palestinian” Authority to unify Hamas and the PLO.
I tend to agree about Obama and Wright: and I don’t understand where political expediency would make Obama be in the church in the first place. It was political expediency that caused him to leave as he had to be tapped on the shoulder and told it was wrong. That means Obama at least tacitly approved of what was going on in one of the most racist congregations from top to bottom in the U.S.
No normal person would attend a church week after week for over 20 years unless they agreed with the message being put forth by that church and its pastor. If Obama did not agree with Wright, he would have found a new church after attending a few times. Even Oprah could not abide the rantings of Wright and quit his church.
I’m tired of being told by liberals that I’m not reading the situation correctly: Bill Ayers really wasn’t a friend of Obama; Obama didn’t really have that much to do with Tony Rezko; Obama didn’t hear Wright when he was ranting, and besides, Obama missed church a few Sundays and didn’t hear that particular rant; he had other friends in college besides marxists, feminists, and gays/lesbians/transgenders; he’s not obligated to release his school records; he had a good attendance record in the Illinois state legislature (didn’t he vote “present” a lot?); being president is a tough job and he needs a lot of vacations to rest up.
If you hang around with socialists and marxists and identity group leaders with a beef all your life, it means you are one of them and believe in their agendas.
I really do not care if Ron Paul is a “racist,” an “antisemite,” a “homophobe,” or any of the other contentless epithets that are promiscuously spewed nowadays in American politics.
The man is a fool; a crank; a conspiracy theorist; a hypocrite and liar; and, just like the man he hopes to replace, an obvious hater of his own country. It is these things, not any epithets relating to particular groups, that disqualify him from serious consideration as anything except a member of the Nut Wing of American politics, which he inhabits along with Cynthia McKinney, whom he has endorsed; with David Duke, who has endorsed him; with Pat Buchanan, with whom he shares many views; with Noam Chomsky, whose doppelganger he in many ways is; and with his half-educated cult followers.
meh, another day another Ron Paul hit piece…
As with roaches, when you see one ronpaul you have a much bigger problem.
Two today – PJ needs to pace themselves.
Still, the Paulites are saying, that was years ago. Give it a rest.
Not so long ago, last week on Leno, Ron Paul laughingly said that Bachmann hates Muslims and Santorum hates gays.
I understand Ron Paul’s supporters and acolytes are rude, to boot.
…disregard of Islam as something to be taken seriously in and of itself is particularly stunning when that ideology is close to the most antithetical imaginable to Paul’s self-proclaimed libertarianism.
So Santorum wasn’t too far off the mark when he observed that electing RP wouldn’t be too different than re-electing Obama, at least to the extent that, as a function of their ideologies, both minimize the threat of militant Islam.
In fact, Khomeini wasn’t particularly interested in nation-states as a concept, only in a monolithic world under Allah…
A view characteristic of all Islamists.
Not so long ago, last week on Leno, Ron Paul laughingly said that Bachmann hates Muslims and Santorum hates gays.
Not only that, it has become a standard tactic to claim “hatred” any time that your opponent criticizes a protected group. Try and point out the problems in African American society? You’re a racist and hate Blacks. Try and point out the problems in Islam? You’re a religious bigot and hate Muslims. Try and point out the problems with homosexuality? You’re a homophobe. And on, and on, and on. Never mind that one might actually have a valid criticism!
In Tom Kratman’s Science Fiction Terra Nova series (no relation to the TV show) he paints a picture of a future distopian Earth in which the “transnational progressives (“Tranzies”) have won. The Christians were either chased off-planet or (literally) burned at the stake, and the politically-correct Druids and Aztecs regularly have human sacrifices in the main city square (the Druids put the “man” back into “Burning Man festival”).
And yet, the supposed solution the other Republicans tout has done more to help the cause of radical islam than Paul’s let them alone policy.
Islamism has taken over basically the whole Middle East. The Bush doctrine was a farce – when they had a choice, they chose Islamism, not freedom.
And the wars and Iraq and Afghanistan have showed how weak our military might is. You want to know why Iran is so bold? Not because of Paul, but because our weakness has been exposed for the world to see. Do we really want to start another fight with Iran that we will lose in the long run? Oh sure, we’ll blow a bunch stuff up, but 5 years later we’ll be headed home with our tails between our legs…
“And the wars and Iraq and Afghanistan have showed how weak our military might is. You want to know why Iran is so bold? Not because of Paul, but because our weakness has been exposed for the world to see. Do we really want to start another fight with Iran that we will lose in the long run? Oh sure, we’ll blow a bunch stuff up, but 5 years later we’ll be headed home with our tails between our legs…”
One could argue that our failing was in taking on too much. Instead of killing terrorists and preserving civilian life we tried to change the entire system, kill terorists, train soldiers, protect civilians, and be ultra nice.
Now if we went in with the only directives being to remove threat/kill bad guys, and preserve civilian life I have no doubt we’d be the last big dog that that particular chihuaha antagonized.
I find it extremely interesting.
Two comments above suggest that “you people”…meaning the folks who are identified as “PJM” folks, because we associate here…are..by definition “of a like mind”.
The eye-bulging, spittle-flecked rage at “PJM folks” is based upon …I guess, …the company we keep.
And, the point being made by the frothing, raging, fist-shaking commenters?
That we should put no stock in identifying character traits based upon the company kept by Obama and Ron Paul.
Hmmm.
If Obama kept the company of radical extremist professors, Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said, Bill Ayers, the New Party, the DSA, ACORN/SEIU, UNO, Frank Marshall Davis, the Midwest Academy…seems to be a bit more convincing than being cyberfriends with Roger and PJM.
And, while I have written the Inversion Narrative and It’s a Wonderful Leftist Life, …I will gladly take responsibility for them even if Aaron changed a word or two while editing. I would have LOUDLY protested, however, had ANYONE put words in that were diametrically opposed to my feelings on key issues of the day.
Ron Paul apparently associates with some pretty bizarre-thinking people…and TO THIS MINUTE will not disclose who wrote those words…if indeed he did not.
He did nothing to investigate? He did nothing uncover who would sabotage him in that way? Because IF…he was vehemently opposed to such sentiments, he would make an effort to not just escape blame…but to expose its roots…so as to REVERSE the impact…not just hide its attachment to him.
His utter failure to do so, his constant forays into the fringes of where these weeds grow…does more to expose, rather than mask the closeness.
In each case, the denialists suggest that “guilt by association” is not acceptable to them. Then, they come here and expose their own lies in the most direct and transparent manner. Of course deep, wide and long term associations are revealing. I’m proud of my association with Roger, VDH, and a number of the PJM regulars. I won’t run from it. Today…or tomorrow.
Very good point. Ron Paul apparently not only didn’t pay attention to the editing of the newsletters that went out under his name, he didn’t bother to read them afterwards. And this guy wants to be responsible for the whole country?
The colossal powers that did put the Obama administration in power can play the most ancient totalitarian trick: they play on both sides of the table. Paul is the tool that will cause the Jewish vote to run away from the GOP. And as a truther, he is a support for the jihadists and their leftist friends.
What he “really” is, it does not matter any longer. His role as manchurian candidate has been played.
Should he win in Iowa, our chances of losing the elections will increase dramatically.
Considering that the other tangible choices in the Republican party at this point are Mitt and Newt, and it WILL, unfortunately, end up being one of those two, I think you should probably just get used to the idea of Obama having a second term.
You assume that all Jews are drones who cannot think for themselves? As a Jew, I find that a rediculous comment. I am a staunch conservative and Republican supporter and nothing and no one could every sway me to vote otherwise.
Good, but unfortunately you seem to be one of a very small group.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/the_jews_the_communists_and_the_democratic_party.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/why_do_jews_vote_for_their_ene.html
There may be hope for the cause, however:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/jew_versus_jew.html
Just as a note: the issue here isn’t the Jews, per se, it’s that a large voting bloc apparently votes against their own interests. Rather puzzling, actually.
Jewish voters already ran away from the GOP to vote for Obama in 2008, go look at the results. Jewish voters are a shrinking percentage of the electorate and they vote heavily Democrat. Blacks vote even more heavily for Democrats. If Ron Paul loses the 20% of Jews who voted for McCain, he will make it up from Christians and Muslims. He can’t lose any more blacks, David Duke received more votes from blacks than John McCain.
Ron Paul would help Israel in the end because he will be the first American president in several decades to give Israel room to maneuver. The Arab world is in disarray and this will continue for years. Israel’s enemies will be fighting each other (Sunni Saudi-Pakis versus Shiite Iran) and Israel will strengthen its position free from U.S. interference.
“Paul arguably believed the despicable remarks in his newsletters more than Obama ever believed Wright’s excrescences.”
If you bet that way you are likely to lose. It is highly likely that Wright’s blather found a permanent place in the malicious heart of this president.
The Muslim race?
And when they hit the US with a single nuke or even three nukes, they’ll become an object lesson to the entire Islamic world why you don’t hit one of the largest nuclear powers (in terms of land, population, population distribution, economy and military) with nukes. For God’s sake, man. A single ballistic missile submarine could reduce the entire country to radioactive rubble in under 45 minutes (average time to wipe out the Soviet Union with our Navy’s nuclear resources).
Maybe I need to spell it out for you. They hit us, it’s tragedy. We retaliate, it’s a damn nuclear genocide of the Persian nation. Most of their leaders know that, which is why most of them aren’t a real threat.
We’re lucky the Mullahs are such rational thinkers, aren’t we?
Yeah the Mullahs are so crazy irrational you can’t talk to them at all. Oh wait, they negotiated the Iran hostage crisis, they negotiated the Iran/Iraq war and they negotiated the Vincennes attack. Is it irrational to believe the Persians are not so stupid as to destroy their country, 5,000 years of culture, their friends, their family all to lob one nuke at Tel Aviv?
Maybe I need to spell it out for you. They hit us, it’s tragedy. We retaliate, it’s a damn nuclear genocide of the Persian nation. Most of their leaders know that, which is why most of them aren’t a real threat.
Just whom do you believe is part of today’s American political scene and would have the nerve to perform “nuclear genocide of the Persian nation?” Do you think Barack Obama would? Not on your life. Can you see Mitt Romney doing it? I can’t. Ron Paul would apologize to them for our ruining their nuke by providing a target. Would Gingrich retaliate in “genocide” mode? Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmaybe. Maybe. Perhaps.
We are going to get hit, in all probability, because we are the biggest target around and because we have “leaders,” and would-be leaders, who talk big but who don’t have the nerve to follow through on their big talk.
Buzz, Mike seems to be willing to gamble the lives of maybe a million of our citizens on the probability that Iran would not use a nuke against us. I’m not so sure, because they might reason that we would initiate a limited rataliation, depending on who our President was at the time and our Congress. I believe they would willingly accept an equal loss, just to be able to bring us to our knees, as a major nuke strike would do.
Furthermore, if they develope a nuke that is transportable and give it to one of their minions to smuggle into the U.S., let alone two or three, we may not know immediatly whom to blame. Regardless, if Iran were to believe they could bring about a Worldwide Sharia Caliphat by starting WW III, they could easily do so. Religious zealots have done insane things in the past, as history has proven.
“And when they hit the US with a single nuke or even three nukes”
Mike T, you are amazingly calm about the prospect of the death or wounding of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of your fellow citizens. A single nuclear weapon detonated in air burst over one of our major cities could easily inflict hundreds of thousands of casualties. In addition, the economic damage would be in the hundreds of billions and could reach into the trillions if three major cities were hit.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is not the kind of entity you want to trust to be rational. They really believe that if they die in battle against the infidel, they will go immediately to Paradise. The mullahs who run Iran are religious fanatics, not secular Marxist fanatics like the former rulers of the Soviet Union. The threat of massive retaliation just isn’t very deterring to true Islamic believers.
I don’t want to trust my life and the lives of my American brothers and sisters to the logic and cost-benefit calculations of Ayatollah Khameni or President Achmadinejad. If we couldn’t do anything about their nuclear threat, we would just have to live (or die) with it.
But we can do a tremendous amount about their nuclear threat, if we just have the will to do it. Of course, the lack of will to do anything serious about a declared enemy of the United States is the real problem here. The strategy of deterrence via the threat of massive retaliation only works if your enemy really believes you will carry out your threat with absolute ruthlessness. Iran has good reason to believe that we won’t because of a long record of American weakness that began with the hostage taking and embassy seizure in President Carter’s administration.
Maybe I need to spell it out for you. They hit us, it’s tragedy. We retaliate, it’s a damn nuclear genocide of the Persian nation. Most of their leaders know that, which is why most of them aren’t a real threat.
Everybody keeps saying this, but it rests on several assumptions that may or may not be true:
1) That even if we knew exactly where the nuclear warhead came from and who was responsible for launching it (not necessarily the same thing) that the president would retaliate in kind. Given President Obama’s statements and actions over the past 3 years, this is not a sure thing. Unfortunately, nuclear deterrence rests upon it being assured. Obama’s equivocating on matters of national defense, and his insistence upon turning matters of national defense into law enforcement issues, has made life much more dangerous. If the Iranian leaders assume that he will fold or attempt to refer the matter to the UN they are that much more likely to think that they could get away with it.
2) That we will be able to track down and identify the responsible party with assurance. This isn’t necessarily Russia, where we can track the missiles back to known silo fields. The Iranians are much more likely to launch from a freighter off of the East coast, or from some spot in the middle of Afghanistan as from their own soil. Suppose that they launch from Venezuela (http://www.hudson-ny.org/1714/iran-missiles-in-venezuela) – who do we retaliate against then?
3) That the Iranian leaders care. As has been pointed out in many other places (e.g. http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/bachmann_vs_the_fact-checkers_did_iran_threaten_nuclear_attack_on_us.html) the Mullahs are not entirely sane. They actually believe that they can help issue in the 12th Imam, and are quite likely to actually do so.
I doubt that the mullahs will risk a direct nuclear confrontation with us now, but they will use the threat to divide the West and its allies and to push us around. Think of the different responses to the Danish cartoons. Some pushed back and defended our freedom of speech; others gave in to the intimidation. The greater the threat they can make against us, the more likely that some will be willing to negotiate away our soul.
Let’s assume the worst about Ron Paul, speculated here, is in fact true.
Who then do you trust to shrink the Behemoth federal state, because he has done so in the past? Sadly, I don’t know of a more trustworthy alternative to bring that message to the forefront.
Libertarians for Palin, anyone?
Maybe it doesn’t have to be all or nothing, Orsen.
Maybe it would be a good thing to get rid of the most dangerous man on the planet (Obama, not Ron Paul), and do some stuff like repeal Obamacare, and reduce government spending and regulations. That probably isn’t everything that any reader of PJM would want, but it would be a good first step, wouldn’t it? There would even be a chance that people might begin to realize that the overwhelming size of governement was the big part of the problem in the first place.
Now contemplate an alternative. A candidate who demands it all within a month. Dratically slash one trillion out of the budget. Immediately reform SS and Medicare. Close multiple federal departments instantly. That would be really great, wouldn’t it!! The only problem is that the candidate wouldn’t get 30% of the vote, and the most dangerous person on the planet would have four more years to complete the destruction of the country.
proreason,
Who is your alternative? Maybe its just me, but every other candidate has questionable small government roots. And while you say Paul will enact it all in a month, its doubtful that he can turn around this behemoth in such a short span of time.
Forget the racist aspect of Ron Paul (no human being is without racial bias), his foreign and domestic policies are nothing short of disaster for America. He is a seriously flawed and dangerous politician.
Exactly. He’s committed so many logical fallacies that he’s got both Aristotle and Plato spinning in their graves.
Paul and his bots keep harping that we’re attacked because of our involvement outside our borders. The twits might as well blame the Magna Carta and Luther’s 95 theses for 9/11. Geez!
What puzzlesl me about Ron Paul are, at the moment, two issues:
One, is his refusal to be accountable for HIS newsletters. The opinions in them may not have been written by him but since those newsletters went out under his name, then, he is accountable.
Is he the kind of ‘potential president’, who would refuse to take responsibility for the actions of his administrators? Would he, as President, as he is now doing, insist that he was unaware of their activities?
That is reprehensible behavior.
Two, is his astonishing ignorance of world history, particularly that of the Middle East, and his ignorance of historical causality. He seems totally unaware of demographics, economic mode (industrial vs agricultural), population shifts, tribal vs civic political modes, two class vs three class economies, and so on. How can he, without understanding these basics, functionally analyze world events? He can’t; he comes up with simplistic reductionist causality (they are reacting to our interference)…ignoring that history doesn’t begin with one agent but within a deeper infrastructure (outlined above).
And his solution? Isolationism. Incredible. This is no longer the 17th c; we live in a global economically networked world. Ron Paul doesn’t acknowledge this.
yes, those two things
And because he’s a flaming crackpot who believes every half-baked theory by every brain dead conspiratist who every lived.
And that all he has done in his life has been to whine that his crackpot theories never get implemented and that the world is ruined because he doesn’t get to be the big earthmover in the global sandbox.
And that he is a racist.
And that his followers are a deranged cult who would apparently still hang on his every word if he cooked and ate babies on national tv.
And that he is on the outer 1% of every single issue, some conservative, many liberal, but always, always the outer fringe. There is something frightening about that all by itself. Kind of reminds me of some other crackpots from recent history.
What I don’t know, ETAB, is why this guy isn’t running as a Democrat.
He blames others like a Democrat. He blames America like a Democrat. He blames Israel like a leftist. He shirks responsibility like a leftist. He has lackeys and minions do his dirty work, he blames the “bankers” for the fiscal collapse, he’s soft on immigration, he wants to gut the military, and he fans the flames of racial, ethnic and class warfare.
This is not a Republican candidacy. Nothing about it fits the description.
He could primary Obama and get all the attention. Of course, the propaganda machine would then not be letting him run wild.
see #2
Interesting thought, cfb. Ron Paul is certainly not a Republican.
I frankly don’t see him, as he sees himself, as a Constitutionalist, because he tends to ignore the ‘people’ as a governing force; instead, his focus on the isolation of the individual, which he calls Libertarian, denies the Constitution’s focus on the infrastructure of a society, ie, its focus on this infrastructure as belonging to and created by, the people.
Furthermore, the requirement by Libertarinism that govt or/and individual infrastructure not infringe on the ‘rights’ of individuals to life, liberty and property is, I feel, naive. The social contract theory, which is, I think, the theory of the Constitution, operates by the individual acknowledging limits to individuality.
Note – before anyone jumps in, the Constitution’s focus on ‘the people’ is not socialism, with its centralist authoritarianism.
And I’ll admit that I don’t really understand Paul’s theories, for they seem to be based around negative actions rather than positive (non-interference, non-interaction).
Ron Paul wants to turn the clock back and escape from the intricate and elaborate manners required to operate in post 18th century societies. This is a guy who clearly doesn’t want to rein himself in. He resents having to tell the little lies that keep the world functioning smoothly. It’s plainly obvious in the debates, when he is interviewed and when he gives a speech. He probably NEVER lies, not even when doing so is harmless or beneficial. You can bet his wife knows exactly what he thinks about her.
He wants to return to the fiscal policy that was abandoned by the world 80 years ago or more, which wasn’t done on a whim. The gold standard was already constraining growth. If it was reimplemented today, it would choke off growth completely. But he doesn’t care about that. All he cares about is returning to a standard that everybody thought they understand, regardless of what it would do to world economies. He thinks complicated economies are a problem anyway. Too many interactions.
He wants to disable government in nearly every respect. Not just limit its influence, but shut it down. Most people would argue that even though government is too powerful, every function was put in place with the intent of solving a civil problem. So he basically denies that the government should be involved with any aspect of civil life. It’s a position that virtually nobody would agree with if they understood the extent of his beliefs.
He wants to return to the time when two oceans made it possible for the United States to function with almost no interactions with foreign countries. He doesn’t just want to limit foreign intervention, he blames every problem on US intervention. If 9/11 was the US’s fault, everything is the US’s fault. When he says isolation, he really means it.
All of his ideas are at the ultra extreme end of modern thought. For every issue he sees in the world, he wants to return to a time when a person could get everything they needed witin a radius of a couple miles and a few dozen people. It’s a hopeless outcry against complexity and modernity. It’s reminiscent of Ted Kazinsky.
His desire for total isolation may explain how he can write racist rants but still appear to be totally non-racist to people who meet him. It’s not so much that he hates other people, but that he simply doesn’t want to have anything to do with people different than himself. If you have no desire to interact, why would you bother to be sensitive to how others might percieve what you write about them. But when forced to have contact, he controls what he says because he understands the standards for polite society, even though he doesn’t like them. In that, he isn’t much different from anybody else today. Nobody says obviously racist things in public anymore.
ETAB, Ron Paul is not a Republican, it is most glaringly apparent. He is aggressively anti-military, anti-common defense, anti-Federalist, anti-border protection. Let us set aside for a moment his strong undercurrent of anti-Jewish and anti-black rhetoric of his newsletters and his voluntary amnesia about their ugly sentiments.
Which of those would make ANYONE’S “Republican” platforms? His pro-Hamas, pro-Iran, blame America for jihad sentiments…which of those would make an appearance in ANY Republican platform?
This guy is the fun house mirror of Obama’s small c communist, blame and apologize for…America. Obama wants to use the state to destroy the free market,replace it with aggressive statism. Paul wants to fold the tent and that would destroy the free world, replacing it with anti-socialism.
Being socialist or anti-social societies are paths to ruin, run by the same fuel of ignorance and extremism. Being anti-social is the extremist insular society, begging the bad guys to just go away, treating them as hornets, if we just freeze ourselves in place, they won’t bother us.
The small c communists want to join hands and sing kumbaya with the world. Mostly by fraud and deceit, they want to eliminate competition, and make the world cooperate. Paul wants to sing a capella, blend into the woodwork and become invisible.
Obama wants to adopt the world’s problems and make us responsible for them. Paul wants to ignore the world’s problems and turn a blind eye to them. Both blame us for much of their existence in the first place.
Obama wants us to pay the price for causing them. Paul agrees we owe, but wants to default and claim moral bankruptcy.
They are both fools cut from the same cloth. Obama is not a liberal. He’s a hard core leftist posing as a centrist. He wants us to live in a commune. He’s a one world interventionist.
Paul is not a libertarian. He’s hard core rejectionist. He wants us to live in a cave. He’s a one nation isolationist.
Their extremism touches at multiple points and intersections.
We do not need extremism from any direction. But let’s be clear…this is NOT a left vs. right choice. This is a left vs left choice. The fact that Paul is allowed to participate as a Republican being the bigger of the two frauds. And that’s saying something…because Obama as a centrist is a real whopper.
Well, golly gee, maybe it’s because he wants to vastly dismantle the federal government? Yes, some of it includes the military, but he would shrink the whole thing dramatically.
But that’s right, Republicans love big government too, when it’s used against people they don’t like – gays, or to promote thing they do like, like the military and wars.
Just because he doesn’t want to start a war with Iran on the behalf of Israel doesn’t make him a Democrat. Indeed, Democrats don’t mind wars when their guy is in charge.
And let me also point out the obvious that people overlook – he’s a medical doctor. They are sworn to uphold life. You really expect a medical doctor to be a warmonger?
According to Walter Williams on the Rush Limbaugh Show today, Ron Paul is not a racist, but a nice guy. Walter says he’s known him for more than 20 years.
That’s as qualified an endorsement as you can get.
Thanks Cybergeezer!
The cries of “racist” and so on here are nearing Left/Democrat hysterics.
Paul may carry his Randian Libertarianism to abhorrent extremes with his foreign policy opinions, but that’s no reason to enter the Bolshi world of throwing bombs of false ad hominem fallacies against him.
What most rail against as “racist”, I, and the rest of my multiracial and multi religious family, find the remarks they quote as possibly well reasoned responses to the hysteria of the times in which they were made.
SHAME, PJers, if you fall into the progressive trap. Walter Williams did not!
Paul compares OWS to the Tea Party.
But wait, I thought Paul was the father of the Tea Party. Is he saying that constitutionalism and following the law stuff is the SAME as the lawless OWSers?
So much illogic makes my head asplode.
For some reason, I did not quite link that article right. Trying again: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ron-paul-praises-occupy-wall-street_614967.html
Obama would win much of the non-deep South if Romney runs. Conservatives from Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida just won’t get excited for him. Wall Street Republicans and establishment politics will be irrelevant for this election. Ron Paul’s populist appeal is needed to win the battleground states.
Americans want to live in America again. Iran is on the map, but the average voter can’t find it. He’s looking for his own country first.
Those you yearn for the simple life under President Paul should read this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2080534/Will-2012-new-Dark-Age.html
Bloodcurdling.
Still, the Paulites are saying, that was years ago. Give it a rest.
This always gives me pause. Ok, so it was years ago; has he ever denounced it? Has anything said recently indicate that he changed his mind or reconsidered the issue? Or, has he just become firmer in his beliefs?
BTW, you might want to consider the following
But the facts prove Bachmann right. First, the mullahs’ mouthpiece Ahmadinejad is unambiguous that the regime’s goal is the destruction of both Israel and the U.S., having vowed at the “World Without Zionism” conference that “his eminency Imam Khomeini … said that the occupation regime of Qods [Israel] must be wiped off from the map of the world, and with the help of the Almighty, we shall soon experience a world without America and Zionism, notwithstanding those who doubt.” Second, his promise to annihilate these two nations, and to do it “soon,” is coupled with a nuclear threat….
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/bachmann_vs_the_fact-checkers_did_iran_threaten_nuclear_attack_on_us.html#ixzz1i3brdK4i
If Dr. Paul ignores the Iranian’s own statements, we have a problem.
In other words, Muslims are children who could not possibly have the beliefs they do of their own accord and choose to act on those beliefs. They only do what they do because of us.
I am used to reading such analyses from the far left. The only place where people have SOME excuse for thinking that way is Britain (where everyone does), not because it’s real but because it’s a hold-over from an internal fight over their abandon empire.
They blame everything in the world on their empire (or slowly change this to blaming American for a perceived – if nonexistent in reality – American Empire).
But beyond the neuroses of former imperialists, these sorts of arguments are always a cover.
They’re an excuse to side with the enemy for psychological or even revolutionary reason. They’re an excuse for pacificism, or they’re even an excuse to avoid supporting people one may hate, such as Jews or Americans.
But believing this crap … well I suppose there is one more reason, pure ignorance and the distrust that comes with absolute ignorance.
Ron Paul may believe that there is no such thing as Islamism, no such organization as Al Qaeda (see the fact that he’s a truther) and that ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT EVERY EXPERT HAS IS A LIE TOLD BY SOME NEPHARIOUS ENEMY. Ie the paranoid bullshit that only very ignorant, immature and stupid people believe.
Which is the sort of thing a guy who puts out a racist newsletter believes.
It’s funny, one could almost expect that in response to a black Democratic president the GOP would have a racist candidate in the primaries. But it was a little bit of shock to me to realize that the racist on the stage was Ron Paul.
You may consider Paul to be racist but according to our President he’s just a typical white person.
And for everyone out there that thinks if someone doesn’t take the government’s word on 9/11 then they are a “conspiracy theorist” and therefore a crank, keep in mind that many people didn’t believe the government when the Warren Commission Report came out about the Kennedy assassination. Turns out the House Select Committee on Assassinations deemed it so.
There seem to be some similarities between Paul and Carter and Obama as described by Ed Driscoll in his Carter Country post. Essentially it is that people can’t seem to get a message through to them and that they like being in a echo chamber, be it Valerie Jarrett or Paulbots. I too would like to know what Paul thought of The Looming Tower.
RON PAUL IS THE ONLY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WHO GETS IT By Chuck Baldwin December 29, 2011
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin681.htm
If Obama wins the country is finished, if any of the other GOP candidates wins we are likewise doomed as none of them will move decisively to save us. I don’t agree with all of RP’s views but lost all hope in the establishment GOP after 1992/1996/the Bush Years/McCain(sp?). Seriously, the GOP primary process has a history of selecting the only candidate who will lose. The Bush years were the greatest insult of all. “WE” had it ALL and not only did GWB fail to dismantle a single unconstitutional bureaucracy, he added one, and expanded several more. So with all due respect, you hand wringing pseudo-patriots are demonstrating your fear of REAL change. Is RP perfect? Of course not, but he is the ONLY one in the race who will actually try to stuff the Federal monster back in the cage. If that doesn’t happen the mad mullahs won’t need to destroy us. This is our last chance, and I for one am ready for a big gamble.
As for policing the world – screw it, you take care of your home and family before worrying about the crazy neighbors. That said, I have no interest in sending my sons off to die in some half assed 21st century police action with absurd rules of engagement and cultural sensitivity at every turn. If the WTC attack wasn’t enough to warrant all out existential war, what will be? Until we are resolved to roll in with maximum force and utterly destroy the enemy we may as well stay home. The only problem the U.S. has internationally is we are neither feared nor respected. Since we clearly don’t have the resolve needed to be feared, maybe “they” will respect us if we bring the boys home. I doubt it, but we will save lives and treasure in the short run by doing so and we are running very low on treasure in case you haven’t noticed.
If you were in a life-threatening medical emergency and Dr Ron Paul stepped up to treat you, would you
a) be reassured you were in good hands
b) terrified he wasn’t compos mentis enough to understand what was wrong.
“Your candidates suck, Roger! They are the worst representation of our country possible; get over it! I’m not even that big a Ron Paul fan but he is spot on about foreign policy.” Yes, Rick Perry made George Dubya look like Einstein. Sorry Roger, I know you had a good time shooting with him.
I posted a comment on the other thread for Preston, I guess, all these PJM writers’ names start to blur together after awhile along with what I hope are not their multiple sock puppets. I said I hope he looks all the people he’s been defaming as supporting a Commie-Nazi in the eye up in Iowa when he heads out there this week. And yes, try to restrain or prevent from soiling yourself when the results are announced as Paul winning.
Not only does Ron Paul not speak for all libertarians, but libertarians would also do well to remember that Ayn Rand was fiercely pro-Israel.
Some call it “isolationism”, but a better term would be “national solipsism”. At the personal level, solipsism is the belief that you alone have thoughts and feelings, and everyone else is just a mindless automaton reacting to your actions.
Canadians joke about one-way glass, through which the outside world carefully watches everything that happens in America, while America sees only its own reflection.
I’m sorry, but Paul’s policies are traditional Republican ones. His domestic policy in particular, but even his foreign policy was basically the same that GWB ran on and won. Remember all his talk about not doing nation building any more?
The difference is, 9/11 happened and some people decided it was time to wage an endless war we can’t win against the Middle East.
Paul thought otherwise.
And more and more people are realizing that we did make a mistake after 9/11. GWB was right – we simply can’t nation build – we can’t impose our own beliefs and values on other people that simply don’t want them. Even if this were a good thing, and I think it is, we are simply unable to, as events in the Middle East have shown. Iraq is about to descend to a civil war. Egypt is Islamist. Turkey is Islamist. Libya is. All took different routes to Islamism, but that’s all where they ended up.
And what would Paul have done to respond to 9/11?
He sponsored legislation to grant letters of marque and reprisal as authorized in the constitution.
Instead of a sledgehammer method of conventional, expensive, drawn-out warfare; the mercenary kill-team method may have worked like a scalpel, and much sooner.
The solution to PJM’s problem with RP has an easy fix. All Dr. Paul needs to do is say “I love Israel. Anything for Israel” and all will be good. Roger will then remember that Paul is fanatic for americans of all stripes: muslim, jew, black, white, asian, female, gay, you name it. Except: statist, power-seeking, intolerant, oligarchic, socialist, wire-tapping, wifi-sniffing, internet-monitoring, war-mongering, empire-buildng, property-stealing americans. Them, not so much.
It would be so easy. Why doesn’t he just say it? Oh, yeah. Probably because Israel is not the 51st state and thus isn’t America.
Obnoxious drivel is what you’ve spewed for all PJM readers to see. Have a happy new year — why not spend it in Tehran?
Or would you be happier in Cairo? Damascus?
If Paul is anti Jewish, how to explain that his economic mentors, Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises were both Jews? If he is personally anti Israel, how to explain that Leon Hadar and Ilana Mercer both support him? If he is personally anti Jewish how to explain that Walter Block (one of the leading libertarian economists) and Paul Gottfried are close to him?
If Paul is anti-military how come he has attracted twice as muchin campaign donations from active servicemen than the the other Republican candidates combined?
Are all of these people deluded? Are the Jews self-hating Jews? Are the servicemen and women unpatriotic and anti American?
If he is such a homophobe, how come he publicly stated in the 2008 campaign that he would allow gays to openly join the armed forces?
Furthermore, although most of the Republicans (and even Obama) and most commentators on the right side of the political spectrum warn about getting our fiscal house in order, only Paul, if elected, would be willing to do anything of a substantive nature, as opposed to tinkering aroound the edges. Its wise to remember that the Republicans seem to take the Tea Party movement for granted. What drove it was out of control spending-spending which has thus far not be reined in. The other candidates are willing to claim the Tea Party mantle, but its one thing to talk the talk and another to walk the walk.
Its not becoming for Simon or this website in general to reduce itself to what strike me as ad hominem attacks in the guise of policy differences on Paul. Its almost a certainty that Paul will not end up with the Republican nomination, but if he did, it would be amusing to see whether the columnists on sites like this would support Paul or Obama.
“If Paul is anti Jewish, how to explain that his economic mentors, Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises were both Jews? If he is personally anti Israel, how to explain that Leon Hadar and Ilana Mercer both support him? If he is personally anti Jewish how to explain that Walter Block (one of the leading libertarian economists) and Paul Gottfried are close to him?”
Ah, the “some of my best friends are black” argument. Haven’t seen that one since 1956.
I am sorry you missed my point. Its not that Ron Paul says that some of his best friends are Jewish. Its that his economic mentors were Jews, and that despite the claims that he is anti Israel and anti Jewish, there are prominent libertarian suppporters of Israel (Ilana Mercer) and prominent Jewish conservative intellectuals (Walter Block and Paul Gottfried) who know Paul well and support him. Also, I made the point that Paul leads in contributions from active servicemen with more than twice that of the rest of the Republican field combined. Perhaps, that is a tribute that unlike armchair generals and strategic thinkers like Gingich, he actually served in the air force. Are all these brave men and women, stupid dupes or is it possible that they know, better than we civilians, whose policies are better for America.
I appreciate it when others are willing to comment on my observations, but it doesn’t reflect well on those who go for the cheap shot without addressing the substantive point.
No, I didn’t. I got your point precisely; you didn’t get mine.
Meanwhile, there’s this…
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/30/ron-paul-know-whos-really-behind-islamic-terrorism-the-jews/
Explain that one, Oh Sage.
Andy,
Just so that I am clear on this, I read your comment and your link to mean that any Jew, Israeli, supporter of Israel of Judeophile, is either deluded, or in some way self hating if that person fails to condemn Paul. If this is not a fair reading of your comment, please correct me.
Also do you have an explanation for the reason Paul has such a strong appeal to active service personnel that their contributions to him are twice what they are to the rest of the Republican field? And perhaps more important, should we give that any consideration at all in deciding which candidate to support?
One other point, Paul’s policy of non-intervention translated into one of the few congressional votes against the condemnation of the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor project at Osirik. Please don’t mistake my posts as indicating that I support Paul, but I do think the attacks on him by the generally conservative commentators are not fair.
Rothbard despised his own Jewishness and was anti-Israel. Block hangs around Lew Rockwell who is very anti-Israel. Leon Hadar is also no friend of Israel and writes diatribes against it. Mises was Jewish, but it is not relevant here, Ron Paul didn’t hang around him, as Mises was a bit before RP’s time. Ilana Mercer is the only one who is reliably pro-Israel.
I would agree that RP is not a classic anti-Semite; but he truly despises Israel and also would have let ALL of European Jewry go up in smoke like my grandparents did in the crematoria of Auschwitz, so RP can go burn in hell. The fact some Jews are moronic enough to hang with Israel haters and the likes of RP is sad, just like the fact that so many voted for another Israel hater, BHO. We always have had traitors and fools and even kapos in our midst. Every group does. That some love RP? Or that RP is not an obvious KKK type….well, he’s close enough for me.
I am glad that you accept that Paul is not an anti-semite in any traditional sense. Obviously many Jews were not terribly concerned about what struck others as obvious signs that Barack Obama lacked sympathy for Israel and were assuaged by the fact that many of his advisors (Rahm Emanual comes to mind) were Jews with close ties to Israel. Other Jews will subordinate a candidate’s position on Israel to what they might consider more important or pressing concerns. Those same considerations may motivate many of the Jews who support Paul. For those Paul supporters who consider themselves supporters of Israel they see Israel as an economically strong, military power that will be harmed less by any cut off in foreign aid than the neighboring Arab states. They may also believe that the best way for America to help Israel is for the United States to get on a sound financial footing, and think that Paul’s medicine of budget cuts, attacks on the federal reserve and elimination of regulations is the necessary tonic.
It is a legitimate argument to make that you want to elect a president who, if faced with a choice to intervene to stop an extermination of the Jews, would do so. However, it is not fair to characterize an unwillingness to intervene unless voted upon as part of a declaration of war by congress, as anti-semitic. What I understand you to say is that there are some occasions when acts of such reprehensible enormity as the holocaust in WWII occur, that you want a president who will intervene whether Congress approves or not. What I understand Paul to say is that it doesn’t matter how horrific the act, the sole power to declare war is with Congress and he is not going to engage in foreign intervention, regardless of how compelling a case can be made for a humanitarian motive, unless Congress acts. Voters can choose to accept the policies of presidents since Truman in Korea that as the commander in chief, he can, in effect make war, without congressional authorization, or they can support Paul if they believe that Presidential war making power is limited.
However, when engaging in this rhetorical argument against Paul, you should consider that the Allies in WWII did not take steps to bomb any of the extermination camps or disrupt the transportation to the camps. Whether this was as a result of calculated priorities, anti-semitism, or ignorance of the scale of the deportations and slaughter, is for purposes of this discussion beside the point. WWII was not fought to save the Jews. If Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin had that as a priority, your grandparents might have died a natural death. You should also consider how unlikely it is that if a similar slaughter were underway in today’s world, that the congress would not vote to authorize the President to take steps to intervene. I cannot imagine that a congress that gave Netanyahu a standing ovation would stand idly by if Israel suffered a military reversal that exposed its people to extermination.
Again, I want to point out that this defense of Paul should not be taken as an endorsement of him. Only that both Simon’s and the participants in this blog’s charges of racism against him strike me as unfair. I see Paul as consistent (which is not necessarily a good thing) and principled. I don’t share all his principles, but what seems to inform the, for want of a better word, “hostility” toward Paul that I read here, is a combination of fear that Paul will harm the Republican chances of retaking the White House and Senate, and a desire to stifle his ideas, which I find harder to understand. What is most disturbing about politics is the dissimulation and prevarication and hypocrisy. Paul is out there. He doesn’t trim to his audience, or flip flop to gain political advantage, at least not to the extent of his rivals for the presidential nomination. This fear of debating Paul’s ideas, and attacking the man instead, I find troubling and undercuts the argument by the Right that they are intellectually honest and the Left is not.
Plus to top it all off Preston worked for the Republican Party of Texas for years, which might explain the Rick Perry adverts appearing here a few months back, and in that position was responsible for endorsing Paul on multiple occasions, even when Paul was known in the early 2000s to hang out in Austin with Alex Jones. Even if he denies he knew about the CSPAN discussions of Paul’s newsletters, Paul’s made no secret of his views which are suddenly anathema. Preston didn’t say a peep then, but suddenly Paul is the Antichrist or at least PJM has decided to go after him when he actually can win a caucus (though PJM knows very well the GOP can change the rules anytime and otherwise broker a candidate, most likely Romney with a ‘conservative’ veep, in a back room).
Many bloggers both on PJM and many other web sites were justifiably enthusiastic about Governor Perry, who’s wrought an economic miracle down in Texas, the likes of which many of us would be happy to see writ large throughout the country. Unfortunately, his performance in the debates did not highlight his best qualities. There’s no fair-minded reason to criticize any of PJM’s bloggers for looking forward to what President Rick Perry could accomplish for our sinking ship of state. Why shouldn’t some of PJM’s bloggers have posted positive pieces about Perry? Hey, you didn’t have to read them.
Des Moines, Iowa (CNN) – Texas Rep. Ron Paul has distanced himself from a series of controversial newsletters from the 1980s and 1990s that bore his name and included inflammatory and racially charged language.
As the newsletters burst into view, first during his 2008 presidential bid and again in recent weeks after he climbed to the front of the Republican race in Iowa, Paul has blamed the writings on ghostwriters. He said he was not aware of the “bad stuff,” as he described it.
But one of Paul’s own books, published solely under his name, contains several passages that could be problematic as he attempts to push his libertarian message into the political mainstream.
In his 1987 manifesto “Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years,” Paul wrote that AIDS patients were victims of their own lifestyle, questioned the rights of minorities and argued that people who are sexually harassed at work should quit their jobs.
“That inability to select even marginally acceptable (non-racist) employees and colleagues should, on the face of it, disqualify Paul as a candidate for president of the United States.”
Why? If our current president can attend (for 20 years) a church led by a rabid racist and subject his children to that poisonous environment, I don’t see a problem with the next president following suit. The more important question as I see it is whether Ron Paul is more likely than any of the others to make an honest effort at finally balancing the budget. After all, the budget is something the president can actually do something about. He can try to reinstitute Jim Crow or slavery or whatever, but it would be a gnat’s fart in a hurricaine.
Israel is not the 51st state. Get over it.
We’re sick of hearing about them. They are not more important than Bolivia or Taiwan or Norway — and yet for some reason we are subjected to endless news coverage of everything that affects Israel.
The Middle Eastern country with which we have the closest historical and cultural ties: Israel!
The people whose religious and political philosophies can be traced from the beginning of Western Civilization, the formation of Christianity, and to the founding of the United States: Israel!
The country which we AND THE REST OF THE UN promised to restore and protect: Israel!
The single Middle Eastern country that does not seek America’s destruction: Israel!
Oh, yeah, and: Israel!
“We’re sick of hearing about them.”
We? You have a mouse in your pocket? Speak only for yourself. It’s apparent you have overlooked the significance of the US having an ally in the middle of a very unstable region of the world. It’s in the interest of our country (& many others) to maintain a positive relationship with this ally.
“In his 1987 manifesto “Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years,” Paul wrote that AIDS patients were victims of their own lifestyle, questioned the rights of minorities and argued that people who are sexually harassed at work should quit their jobs.”
Aside from questioning the rights of minorities, I agree. A huge majority of AIDS sufferers in the US are either gay or drug users, both of which are lifestyle choices. That’s not even controversial. And if I was sexually harassed at work and didn’t like it, quitting would be on the agenda for sure, well before getting all litigous. There’s too much of that, especially when quitting is the far more sensible solution.
John, Israel *is* a unique state, much more so than Norway or whoever. For one, it’s the only Jewish state (as opposed to umpteen Islamic states). For another, it’s uniquely hated by the left worldwide, including the left in Israel itself. It’s strategically located, it’s got a messed up history and it’s just a neat place. Trying to treat it like just any state is disingenuous.
Many Ron Paul supporters would have rather had Gary Johnson but, whoops, the GOP shut him out of the debates. The problem is that while “conservatives” jump up and down and scream and shout about Ron Paul’s problems (and there are some)…. what else do you have to offer people who believe in a balanced budget and limited government? Look at yourselves. You claim you want to repeal Obamacare, but your two leading candidates both strongly endorsed the philosophy behind it. Heck, Mitt Romney just said in a video interview yesterday that the Individual Mandate is compatible with conservative values. Neither Romney or Gingrich will even make so much as a politician’s lying promise to try to balance the budget.
Complain all you want about Ron Paul, but the Republican party has whored out its principles (and I don’t use that word casually – I mean it in the most vile and disgusting sense) in the name of “party loyalty at all costs” for so many decades now that you could take either of your two non-Paul front-runners and just as easily throw them on the Democratic ticket. There are plenty of legitimate complaints about Paul, but produce a small-government candidate of your own or shut the heck up.
Well put. I think Henninger in the WSJ finally figured out what Ron Paul’s growing support is about. He isn’t the best candidate and I’d support someone else, but there’s no one else. Only Michelle Bachmann understands the U.S. financial position, she said she’d cut spending 43% in one of the debates. The other candidates don’t take it seriously; either they don’t understand it or don’t want to talk about it. On foreign policy, aside from Huntsman, the other candidates have almost identical positions and they are all on the far-right. The wars aren’t popular and were part of the reason the GOP lost in 2006 and 2008. Voters are going to be even less interested in another war in 2012, as jobs and the economy will dominate.
And what’s with using liberal attacks on Ron Paul? He’s a racist homophobe? So is Romney, Newt, Santorum, Perry and Bachmann according to the NYTimes and every leftist out there.
This.
I don’t *like* Paul, but frankly I’m coming to dislike the other front runners more.
I don’t think he is the racist the latest attacks are implying – but frankly, even if he were, at this point we’re so far gone that I’d rather have a racist sexist homophobe that I can trust to *leave us alone* and respect the Constitution than a sweet talking inclusivist that gives nothing but lip service to the Bill of Rights.
Ron Paul is not a racist, so you are correct, he must be a terrible judge of character.
Ron Paul’s newsletters versus Obama listening to Jeremiah Wright’s speeches.
Eric Dondero (no longer any kind of friend of Paul) has written that in all the years he worked for Paul, he never heard Paul utter any racist sentiment. It seems probable that Paul did not and does not believe the garbage that was in his newsletters under his name. That means he published material he knew was garbage. Why? For money and political support – the newsletters brought in millions of $ and support for his campaigns.
Obama joined Wright’s church to gain political credibility in Chicago. Obama tacitly endorsed Wright’s rantings by his continued attendance and five-figure donations to the church. But – he didn’t speak those rantings himself. And it should be noted that Wright had a lot of other prominent “respectable” parishioners. (Oprah Winfrey, for instance.)
Both are discreditable. I think perhaps Paul is worse, as he explicitly endorsed lies.
Quite amusing to watch all these bloggers and pundits slip into Paul-Derangement-Syndrome.
Just to keep these head explosions going, here is some red-meat:
Caller grills Paul on newsletters: (starts 28:00, best part at 32:00)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8UOSck8tP0#t=27m50s
The kind of recism Roger describes is fairly common among anti-war/conspiracy theorists. The most glaring examples that I know of is the belief that not only did Franklin Roosevelt know about the pending attack on Pearl Harbor, he actually manipulated the Japanese government into staging it. This would of course require that FDR have arranged for militarists to take over Japanese government and have done so before he himself ever took office in early 1933.
Either that or Japanese are a lesser race of non-volitionals whose every act was an unreasoned reaction to American stimuli.
And if you really want to spread denial, inform certain Paul-like folks of the fact that (a) Japan had seven cyclotrons up and running in 1945 (b) could have produced 2-3 atom bombs per day if they had had fissionable material and (c) that 560 kilograms of U25 was on its way to Japan aboard the U234 when VE Day came and her skipper decided to reverse course and pulled into Baltimore and surrendedered, shcoking everybody with the revelation of what he had in his torpedo tubes.
Just proves that right and left alike have elements that insist on their narrative ovveriding all facts.
I’m very surprised to see Roger Simon writing these things about Paul with such poor evidence.
A few of the comments in the Paul newsletter were taken out of context. Some were nasty without a doubt. Paul can rightly be accused of not policing newsletters under his name well enough. Does that disqualify him as a presidential candidate? If it does, then no other candidate could possibly qualify given their instances of outright lying and other nefarious deeds.
Is Paul prejudiced against blacks? Personally, I believe he could be a little, or maybe not. I don’t care. What I care about is that he doesn’t believe in having govt. policy reflect his or anyone else’s personal beliefs. People have the right to feel however they want about other people and their behaviors. But a in a free country, our government does not use force to impose any of those beliefs on others. That is the core of libertarianism. Simon does not seem to understand that. Obama is obviously anti-white and anti-jew, and pro-muslim. I don’t like that, but where really matters is that he imposes his beliefs on use through his position in govt. He taxes us and gives our money to support muslim causes. That is immoral and unConstitutional.
Paul seems unaware of the magnitude of the islamic threat to the US. He did say that 9/11 was blowback for decades of US interventionist policies in muslim countries. That may in fact be true. Paul did not say that we deserved it (he doesn’t believe in violence except in self-defense), only that it was not unexpected. Simon extends this belief of Paul’s into “Paul believes all muslim actions are the fault of the US.” That’s a false extrapolation, i.e., a gross exaggeration. I doubt Paul thinks muslims beheading other muslims in muslim lands is the fault of the US. I doubt Paul thinks that muslims who follow the dictate of the koran to commit violent jihad are doing it through some fault of the US.
Paul is not isolationist. He is non-interventionist. Is there a difference? Yes. He believes in free trade without restrictions, i.e., voluntary actions between people that doesn’t harm others is permitted. This is what the founders believed. Paul does not believe in being isolated, only that the US should not be using its economic or military prowess to interfere with the freedoms of other countries. Would you want another country to come in and overthrow our leaders or system of government? No, you wouldn’t. And other countries don’t like it either.
Paul isn’t perfect. None of the candidates are. But if you believe that Paul’s ideology, which echos that of our founders almost exactly, is kooky, then you believe the entire premise of a free country is kooky.
Ron Paul: All Aboard! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Haaaa! Mental Wounds Still Screaming! Driving Me Insane I’m Going Off The Rails On My Crazy Train! (And I Want To Take You Along For The Ride)
http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2011/12/ron-paul-all-aboard-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.html
If you want to read the newsletters, I have the scans here:
50 Scans To Leave Your Pauliac Lover a/k/a A 30 Step Programme To Break Yourself Free From The Cult of Paul
http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2011/12/pauliacs-50-scans-to-leave-your-lover.html
And, evidence of the total insanity of the Cult of The Paul Pot:
“Paulsamic Vinegar” Mom: Ron Paul Supporters Spray Vinegar at the Sky to Fight “Chemtrails”…I’m Not Kidding
http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2011/12/paulsamic-vinegar-mom-ron-paul.html
Bradley Manning:
“Manning was arrested on May 26, 2010, and held at first in a military jail at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait.[29] He was charged on July 5 under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with violations of UCMJ Articles 92 and 134 for “transferring classified data onto his personal computer and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system in connection with the leaking of a video of a helicopter attack in Iraq in 2007,” and “communicating, transmitting and delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source and disclosing classified information concerning the national defense with reason to believe that the information could cause injury to the United States,” between November 19, 2009, and May 27, 2010.[30] He was also one of those named in the Twitter subpoena later in December, when the U.S. government tried to obtain access to the Twitter accounts of several of those involved.[31]”
“On March 1, 2011, an additional 22 charges were preferred, including wrongfully obtaining classified material for the purpose of posting it on the Internet, knowing that the information would be accessed by the enemy; the illegal transmission of defense information; fraud; and aiding the enemy. CBS reported that the new charges involved the leaking of the Afghan and Iraq war logs, and a quarter of a million State Department cables; according to ABC News, the charge sheets said Manning had transferred 380,000 records about Iraq, and 90,000 about Afghanistan. In all, CBS said, he is accused of having leaked over half a million documents and two videos. Prosecutors told Manning’s lawyers they would not seek the death penalty, though the charge of aiding the enemy is a capital offense. They said if convicted he will face life imprisonment, reduction in rank to the lowest enlisted pay grade, a dishonorable discharge, and loss of pay and allowances.[32]“–wikipedia
Ron Paul on Bradley Manning:
“You know, talking about giving sovereign immunity to our government officials — and I would remove it all — but what about giving immunity to the whistleblowers? They’re the ones who need immunity. We have a few brave souls, especially in the foreign policy area — it came up in Vietnam, it’s come up more recently, Wikileaks. Information that, technically yes, they’re breaking a rule, but what is the government doing? They’re breaking the law. And they’re doing these horrible things. So, if we have an American citizen that is willing to take the consequences and practice civil disobedience and say, ‘This is what our government’s doing,’ should he be locked up and imprisoned? Or should we see him as a political hero? Maybe he is a true patriot who reveals what’s going on in government.”–Ron Paul as quoted at Real Clear Politics
We don’t need a guy in the White House who tries to justify another man’s (alleged) treason and espionage in order to validate his own political ideology, and that’s what Paul is doing when he tries to paint Bradley Manning as some sort of hero. Ron Paul is bad news. Can’t be trusted. Any man who sees treason and espionage as simply righteous civil disobedience needs to be kept well away from any kind of polical power.
Hey buddy. I know you worked hard to put all of this together, but you do realize it says charges brought against. It doesn’t say anything about what manning was actually PROVEN GUILTY of. You have condemned a man before his trial and you are also believing the same government that was exposed by Bradley manning gunning down Iraqi civilians. Let’s weight the scales, who to believe?