0 comment Tuesday, November 11, 2014 | admin
I didn't see the Tim Russert interview of Ron Paul on Sunday. Truth be told, I don't enjoy such programs; I don't care for the open bias of most of the interviewers and anchor people. When these shows are on, I am usually doing something else and cannot sit down for the length of the show. And I have little patience for watching the whole thing but for those who are interested, here is the YouTube link.
I prefer to read the transcript, although a transcript omits the nuances of the spoken word, body language, and all those other things which give us information about the conversation. But sometimes the written word is more reliable and it is easier to go back and re-read where needed.
Below I've excerpted the parts of the transcript that I found most salient to me. Obviously immigration and sovereignty issues are of paramount importance from my point of view, so these exchanges are of interest:
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about immigration because that's a big issue here, and there has been a profound change. Back when you ran for president, 1988, libertarian, you said, "As in our country's first 150 years, there shouldn't be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work." You've changed your view.
REP. PAUL: And, and during that campaign, I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. And I think, in one sense, with the welfare state out of control--see, my approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically. We're in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Our hospitals are being closed. Conditions have changed. And I think that we should have--and, and 9/11 has occurred. Why shouldn't we be looking at people coming in? So there's--this, this means that we should look at immigration differently. It's an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I--believe me, I don't think there'd be an immigration problem. We'd be looking for workers and we would be very generous.''
Personally, I would like to see Dr. Paul take a harder line on immigration, and I would like him to say he favors limiting or decreasing legal immigration. But I think his approach of ending benefits to immigrants (he doesn't specify legal or illegal immigrants here) is a practical one, and if implemented, would discourage immigration and encourage many illegals to go home of their own volition. Does any other candidate propose anything like this?
It's good that Dr. Paul points out that he is not an 'orthodox' libertarian on this issue; if he were an open-borders libertarian I would not dream of voting for him. But he is a practical man, and his views are more conservative than libertarian.
The next question by Russert has to do with the 'birthright citizenship' or 'anchor baby' issue. Russert obtusely challenges Dr. Paul's constructionist bonafides because he wants to amend the Constitution on this issue:
MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.
REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it. ''
This is an important issue, and Dr. Paul has been consistent in his statements over the years on it, unlike Romney, Huckabee, or Thompson.
And then in this exchange, Dr. Paul shows that he is not just another politically correct panderer. He also makes valid points about the loss of individual liberty which resulted from the Civil Rights Act, and in that sense he is absolutely in sync with the more traditional American view on these issues. It takes courage to say these things, and in a time when political correctness is a real threat to the survival of our culture and our nation, Dr. Paul's willingness to speak the truth is rare, and should be commended. Which of the other 'conservative' candidates would say what he says? Not a one.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about race, because I, I read a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. And you said this: "Contrary to the claims of" "supporters of the Civil Rights Act of" '64, "the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of" '64 "increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.
REP. PAUL: Well, we should do, we should do this at a federal level, at a federal lunch counter it'd be OK or for the military. Just think of how the government, you know, caused all the segregation in the military until after World War II. But when it comes, Tim, you're, you're, you're not compelled in your house to invade strangers that you don't like. So it's a property rights issue. And this idea that all private property is under the domain of the federal government I think is wrong. So this--I think even Barry Goldwater opposed that bill on the same property rights position, and that--and now this thing is totally out of control. If you happen to like to smoke a cigar, you know, the federal government's going to come down and say you're not allowed to do this.
MR. RUSSERT: But you would vote against...
REP. PAUL: So it's...
MR. RUSSERT: You would vote against the Civil Rights Act if, if it was today?
REP. PAUL: If it were written the same way, where the federal government's taken over property--has nothing to do with race relations. It just happens, Tim, that I get more support from black people today than any other Republican candidate, according to some statistics. And I have a great appeal to people who care about personal liberties and to those individuals who would like to get us out of wars. So it has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.''
The fact that Dr. Paul bases his views on the Constitution and private property rights is consistent with his principles. His opposition to the social engineering inherent in the Civil Rights Act is principled, and it's consistent, as he says, with the old-style Goldwater Republicanism. Only in our modern politically correct age would his views be considered beyond the pale.
And the next question was about the Civil War. I happen to agree that there was a better way to solve the slavery issue than by invading the South, sacrificing so many American lives, and leaving permanent scars on the nation. These days most people consider that war a sacred cause, and Lincoln a near-saint. From a conservative point of view, the war and the subsequent hypertrophy of the federal government have led to a deviation from the original intention of the Founders for this Republic.
MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."
REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist..
MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.
REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.''
Dr. Paul is obviously his own man; even his many and vehement detractors recognize this, but they try to make that into a negative; he is 'out of step' or a 'kook' or an 'ideologue' or whatever, and above all, he 'can't win.'
I think the people who say he can't win are just wishful-thinking or whistling in the dark. As much as many people are clamoring for a change, and lamenting the corruption of our political system, along comes a man who represents real change, and a return to Constitutional principles, and some shy away. I think we are seeing who is really serious about wanting change and getting the country back on track. Most people are inclined to prefer the 'devil they know', business as usual, even if they know deep down that more of the same may be fatal.
I sense that some are absolutely closed-minded towards Dr. Paul, and nothing can change their minds.
However for those who are open-minded and truly concerned to pick the right candidate, I urge you to take another look at Ron Paul. And don't accept second-hand information on what Dr. Paul stands for, or his record in Congress. It's so easy, in this age of the Internet, to search out these things for yourselves. There are a lot of incorrect statements being made about Dr. Paul.
I'll make it easy: here is the link to the Ron Paul archives, which I've posted before. I encourage the open-minded to read his archives, wherein you will see his positions on various issues, in his own words.
Watch the Meet the Press interview at the YouTube link or read the transcript if you prefer.
I will probably have more to say about the misconceptions about Dr. Paul in a later entry, but for now, it's almost Christmas and I plan to take a couple of days away from all this and turn my attention away from politics and the crises in our country to lighter and more comforting matters, like friends, family, faith, home.
It's the time of year to reestablish our ties to the really important and lasting things; that's what anchors us. And that's ultimately what all this is about: preserving those things.
I prefer to read the transcript, although a transcript omits the nuances of the spoken word, body language, and all those other things which give us information about the conversation. But sometimes the written word is more reliable and it is easier to go back and re-read where needed.
Below I've excerpted the parts of the transcript that I found most salient to me. Obviously immigration and sovereignty issues are of paramount importance from my point of view, so these exchanges are of interest:
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about immigration because that's a big issue here, and there has been a profound change. Back when you ran for president, 1988, libertarian, you said, "As in our country's first 150 years, there shouldn't be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work." You've changed your view.
REP. PAUL: And, and during that campaign, I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. And I think, in one sense, with the welfare state out of control--see, my approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically. We're in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Our hospitals are being closed. Conditions have changed. And I think that we should have--and, and 9/11 has occurred. Why shouldn't we be looking at people coming in? So there's--this, this means that we should look at immigration differently. It's an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I--believe me, I don't think there'd be an immigration problem. We'd be looking for workers and we would be very generous.''
Personally, I would like to see Dr. Paul take a harder line on immigration, and I would like him to say he favors limiting or decreasing legal immigration. But I think his approach of ending benefits to immigrants (he doesn't specify legal or illegal immigrants here) is a practical one, and if implemented, would discourage immigration and encourage many illegals to go home of their own volition. Does any other candidate propose anything like this?
It's good that Dr. Paul points out that he is not an 'orthodox' libertarian on this issue; if he were an open-borders libertarian I would not dream of voting for him. But he is a practical man, and his views are more conservative than libertarian.
The next question by Russert has to do with the 'birthright citizenship' or 'anchor baby' issue. Russert obtusely challenges Dr. Paul's constructionist bonafides because he wants to amend the Constitution on this issue:
MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.
REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it. ''
This is an important issue, and Dr. Paul has been consistent in his statements over the years on it, unlike Romney, Huckabee, or Thompson.
And then in this exchange, Dr. Paul shows that he is not just another politically correct panderer. He also makes valid points about the loss of individual liberty which resulted from the Civil Rights Act, and in that sense he is absolutely in sync with the more traditional American view on these issues. It takes courage to say these things, and in a time when political correctness is a real threat to the survival of our culture and our nation, Dr. Paul's willingness to speak the truth is rare, and should be commended. Which of the other 'conservative' candidates would say what he says? Not a one.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about race, because I, I read a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. And you said this: "Contrary to the claims of" "supporters of the Civil Rights Act of" '64, "the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of" '64 "increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.
REP. PAUL: Well, we should do, we should do this at a federal level, at a federal lunch counter it'd be OK or for the military. Just think of how the government, you know, caused all the segregation in the military until after World War II. But when it comes, Tim, you're, you're, you're not compelled in your house to invade strangers that you don't like. So it's a property rights issue. And this idea that all private property is under the domain of the federal government I think is wrong. So this--I think even Barry Goldwater opposed that bill on the same property rights position, and that--and now this thing is totally out of control. If you happen to like to smoke a cigar, you know, the federal government's going to come down and say you're not allowed to do this.
MR. RUSSERT: But you would vote against...
REP. PAUL: So it's...
MR. RUSSERT: You would vote against the Civil Rights Act if, if it was today?
REP. PAUL: If it were written the same way, where the federal government's taken over property--has nothing to do with race relations. It just happens, Tim, that I get more support from black people today than any other Republican candidate, according to some statistics. And I have a great appeal to people who care about personal liberties and to those individuals who would like to get us out of wars. So it has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.''
The fact that Dr. Paul bases his views on the Constitution and private property rights is consistent with his principles. His opposition to the social engineering inherent in the Civil Rights Act is principled, and it's consistent, as he says, with the old-style Goldwater Republicanism. Only in our modern politically correct age would his views be considered beyond the pale.
And the next question was about the Civil War. I happen to agree that there was a better way to solve the slavery issue than by invading the South, sacrificing so many American lives, and leaving permanent scars on the nation. These days most people consider that war a sacred cause, and Lincoln a near-saint. From a conservative point of view, the war and the subsequent hypertrophy of the federal government have led to a deviation from the original intention of the Founders for this Republic.
MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."
REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist..
MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.
REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.''
Dr. Paul is obviously his own man; even his many and vehement detractors recognize this, but they try to make that into a negative; he is 'out of step' or a 'kook' or an 'ideologue' or whatever, and above all, he 'can't win.'
I think the people who say he can't win are just wishful-thinking or whistling in the dark. As much as many people are clamoring for a change, and lamenting the corruption of our political system, along comes a man who represents real change, and a return to Constitutional principles, and some shy away. I think we are seeing who is really serious about wanting change and getting the country back on track. Most people are inclined to prefer the 'devil they know', business as usual, even if they know deep down that more of the same may be fatal.
I sense that some are absolutely closed-minded towards Dr. Paul, and nothing can change their minds.
However for those who are open-minded and truly concerned to pick the right candidate, I urge you to take another look at Ron Paul. And don't accept second-hand information on what Dr. Paul stands for, or his record in Congress. It's so easy, in this age of the Internet, to search out these things for yourselves. There are a lot of incorrect statements being made about Dr. Paul.
I'll make it easy: here is the link to the Ron Paul archives, which I've posted before. I encourage the open-minded to read his archives, wherein you will see his positions on various issues, in his own words.
Watch the Meet the Press interview at the YouTube link or read the transcript if you prefer.
I will probably have more to say about the misconceptions about Dr. Paul in a later entry, but for now, it's almost Christmas and I plan to take a couple of days away from all this and turn my attention away from politics and the crises in our country to lighter and more comforting matters, like friends, family, faith, home.
It's the time of year to reestablish our ties to the really important and lasting things; that's what anchors us. And that's ultimately what all this is about: preserving those things.
Labels: Immigration, Political Campaigns, Republicans, Ron Paul
0 comment Sunday, August 24, 2014 | admin
Here's an interesting site, where people of every country can 'vote' for their choice for President of the United States.
When I looked at the results, it appeared as though Ron Paul was in the lead among the Republican candidates and Barack Hussein Obama was leading on the Democrat side.
Luckily, the world can't participate in choosing our President -- not yet, anyway, though if the open borders crowd and the liberals of both parties have their way, we will be giving the vote to non-citizens before too long, and of course there have been reports that illegals in our country have voted.
For now, however, only Americans can legally have a say in who becomes our next President.
I am wondering, however, why so many voting in this poll would pick Obama? Any thoughts on that phenomenon?
Is he that charismatic, or is it just a politically correct thing?
Ron Paul certainly seems to have drawn a lot of favorable notice in other countries; there are blogs supporting him in France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, and the UK, among others. Of course this is proof, to the neocons and the Fredhead types, that Ron Paul must be a liberal because all the 'Eurotrash' as they call Europeans like him.
As I said, every condemnation from those types is like a recommendation, from my point of view. He must be right (in every sense of the word) if they dislike him so much.
When I looked at the results, it appeared as though Ron Paul was in the lead among the Republican candidates and Barack Hussein Obama was leading on the Democrat side.
Luckily, the world can't participate in choosing our President -- not yet, anyway, though if the open borders crowd and the liberals of both parties have their way, we will be giving the vote to non-citizens before too long, and of course there have been reports that illegals in our country have voted.
For now, however, only Americans can legally have a say in who becomes our next President.
I am wondering, however, why so many voting in this poll would pick Obama? Any thoughts on that phenomenon?
Is he that charismatic, or is it just a politically correct thing?
Ron Paul certainly seems to have drawn a lot of favorable notice in other countries; there are blogs supporting him in France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, and the UK, among others. Of course this is proof, to the neocons and the Fredhead types, that Ron Paul must be a liberal because all the 'Eurotrash' as they call Europeans like him.
As I said, every condemnation from those types is like a recommendation, from my point of view. He must be right (in every sense of the word) if they dislike him so much.
Labels: Elections, Gop, Politics, Polls, Presidential Candidates, Ron Paul
0 comment Wednesday, August 6, 2014 | admin
I knew this exchange the other day between Ron Paul and Tim Russert would set off a controversy:
MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."
REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist..
MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.
REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.''
Given that Dr. Paul criticized Abraham Lincoln, who is a near-deity for some, and given that he dared to question whether the sacred cause of 'ending slavery' was worth more than a half-million American lives -- in addition of course to the financial costs -- it was guaranteed that there would be a cry of PC indignation about Dr. Paul's words.
AOL on their home page had a poll asking about Ron Paul's statements regarding Lincoln and the War Between the States. It appears as though the poll has been discontinued. From what I have heard the poll was running against Dr. Paul's point of view. That's not surprising, given the heavy indoctrination the schools administer in their 'history' classes, and given that many people get their information on these matters from unreliable sources like the very Politically Correct History Channel.
Those of us who are Ron Paul supporters will no doubt be subjected to ignorant questions about this issue; I expect to hear 'how can you support a candidate who thinks we shouldn't have ended slavery?' 'How can you support a candidate who thinks the Civil Rights Act was a bad thing?' These issues are so sacrosanct in our society that it's to be expected that many people will have a predictable knee-jerk response and immediately mount their PC high horse and assume their best morally superior air when asking these questions.
I won't take up the Civil Rights Act issue at this time; that will be for another blog entry.
Now, nobody wants to be in the position of attempting to defend slavery, and I am not going to try it. Slavery is history in the Western world -- except in cases where immigrants have re-introduced it into our country -- so if any hyperventilating liberal supposes that anybody is proposing to re-introduce slavery or 'Jim Crow', they can relax and stop being hysterical. But the fact is, the question should be asked: why do we now consider slavery, specifically the slavery once practiced in America, as the ultimate evil, the most heinous crime and sin ever committed, short of 'genocide'? Why are we still rending our clothes about it a century and a half after we put an end to it? Why are the people who make such an issue of slavery unwilling or unable to see any evil in the slavery practiced even now by 'diverse' Third World cultures? The idea that we condemn ourselves, our ancestors, and our culture for every failing while giving Third World people a pass is part of a consistent theme in liberal multicultural ideology. Third-worlders, it seems, are children who are not held accountable for their actions. Where is the equality in that attitude? If we are all equal in every respect, they need to be held accountable to the same unforgiving standards to which we hold Western cultures. Anything else is a kind of 'racism' because it implies that the 'diverse' cultures are, well, primitive and unable to live up to the high standards we apply to our Western culture.
Maybe that is in fact the reality but pin a liberal to the wall and ask them to defend that position, and see what happens.
The idea that slavery, as a fruit of 'racism', is a unique evil, surpassing most evils, is something that is assumed in our day. Why? Yes, I know it violates our supposed 'American creed' that 'all men are created equal,' but there are many other outrages which should command the same outrage, but which do not.
Child labor was a great evil, which was practiced until the last century in Western countries; we've all read of children working long hours at hard or dangerous jobs, sometimes going to an early grave because of the harshness of their lives. Why is this not considered at least as serious an evil as slavery? I would argue that it is worse. Obviously slavery is popularly deemed worst, because of the racial issue, which has assumed paramount importance in our weird post-modern morality. Race seems to trump all. We can insult or criticize almost anyone, even God himself, but we can't criticize or fail to properly defer to those of racial 'victim' status.
I truly think that most Americans, without fully informing themselves and thinking it through, have simply accepted that the question of slavery and the War Between the States are issues that must simply not be examined; slavery, so this line of thought goes, was the ultimate evil and therefore sacrificing over half a million lives and laying waste to the South were necessary acts, and the result was worth it.
But was it the most humane thing to emancipate the slaves suddenly by decree, when many or most of them were not prepared or equipped to make the transition to a life of 'freedom'? A gradual freeing would have been wiser as well as more humane. It would have been better to prepare slaves for freedom, but the liberals and radicals of the time were not concerned with real-life consequences, but as always, were only concerned with serving their utopian ideology regardless of the cost in human terms.
Thomas DiLorenzo, who is a scholar who dissents from the Lincoln cult, writes here how paradoxically, libertarian abolitionist Lysander Spooner defended the South's right to secede, and disagreed with Lincoln's actions. [Aside: Spooner is one of my New England kinsmen, so I am related to several abolitionists as well as to Southron slaveowners.]
Spooner and his entire family were abolitionists for decades prior to the war. He authored The Unconstitutionality of Slavery in 1845, which made him a great hero to the entire abolitionist movement; advocated the nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act by juries (a purely Jeffersonian, states� rights position); called for slave insurrections aided by abolitionists like himself; and even hatched a plot to kidnap Virginia Governor Henry Wise and hold him as a hostage in exchange for John Brown.
Spooner also saw through the phoniness of the Lincoln regime and its diabolical quest for empire at the expense of hundreds of thousands of American lives. As George H. Smith writes, "Spooner stood nearly alone among radical abolitionists in his defense of the right of the South to secede from the Union" (p. xvii). To Spooner, the right of secession was "a right that was embodied in the American Revolution." Moreover, Lincoln�s war "erupted for a purely pecuniary consideration," not any moral reason.
Spooner�s views on the war are laid out in his famous 1870 essay, "No Treason," published as part of the above-mentioned Lysander Spooner Reader. He understood that the Northern business interests who were the backbone of the Republican Party of his time (also Lincoln�s time), whom he labeled "lenders of blood money," had "for a long series of years previous to the war, been the willing accomplices of the slave-holders in perverting the government from the purpose of liberty and justice . . ." (p. 117). It was such interests, after all, that monopolized (and profited immensely from) the transatlantic slave trade, which was always centered in Providence, Rhode Island and Boston, Massachusetts.
The Northern financiers of the war who lent millions to the Lincoln government did not do so for "any love of liberty or justice," wrote Spooner, but for "the control of [Southern] markets" through tariff extortion (p. 118). Mocking the argument of the "lenders of blood money" as they addressed the South he wrote: "If you [the South] will not pay us our price [i.e., a high tariff] . . . we will secure the same price (and keep control of your markets) by helping your slaves against you, and using them as our tools for maintaining dominion over you; for the control of your markets . . ." (p. 118).
[...]
Referring to President Ulysses S. Grant, Spooner also noted that the Northern business interests who controlled the Republican Party had "put their sword into the hands of the chief murderer of the war," who at the time was hypocritically saying, "Let us have peace" (p. 118). Spooner interpreted the crushing of the Southern secessionists at the hands of "murderers" like Grant as essentially saying: "Submit quietly to all the robbery and slavery [i.e., via tariffs and inflation] we have arranged for you, and you can have peace" (p. 118). The Republican Party rhetoric of "saving the union" and "abolishing slavery" was all a sham, said Spooner. "The pretense that the 'abolition of slavery� was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of 'maintaining the national honor,�" the famous abolitionist wrote (p. 119). It was the U.S. government that established and enforced slavery, he noted. The U.S. flag flew over an American slave society almost twenty times longer than the Confederate flag did.
[...] Spooner also ridiculed Lincoln�s ridiculous and absurd statement in the Gettysburg Address that he was waging war for the principle of "a government of consent," or government of the people, by the people, for the people, as his flowery rhetoric put it. In reality, the type of "consent" created by Lincoln�s war was: "everybody must consent, or be shot" (p. 120). This idea "was the dominant one on which the war was carried on." (Another libertarian icon, H.L. Mencken, was of the same opinion). "All of these cries of having 'abolished slavery,� of having 'saved the country,� of having 'preserved the union,� of establishing a 'government of consent,� and of 'maintaining the national honor,� are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats," the great abolitionist declared (p. 121).
Lysander Spooner vigorously attacked the Lincoln regime and defended the Confederacy�s right to secede with the libertarian language of natural rights, consent, and social contract. He recognized that this was also the language of Jefferson Davis�s First Inaugural Address, and that the war was not initiated to "free the slaves," something that neither Lincoln nor the U.S. Congress ever said or thought, even if grossly uneducated Americans do today.''
So really, Ron Paul is not saying something totally novel or 'radical' when he criticizes the War Between the States; he is echoing what others before him, libertarians like Spooner as well as true conservatives, have said.
The War Between the States, which was not strictly the altruistic crusade it purported to be, also left irreparable damage in terms of the relationship between the South and the North; it is hard to forgive and forget when your loved ones have been killed, your home burned to the ground, your crops destroyed, and an occupation government (which the Reconstruction government was) imposed. The North, with Reconstruction, clearly had a punitive agenda in mind. They wanted to utterly humiliate and abase the South. Depriving many citizens of their franchise and their rights as citizens, while putting yesterday's slaves in office, giving them authority over their former masters was malicious in intent, and served no good purpose. It was because of historical episodes like that that my Southron ancestors were firmly anti-Republican for a century. The radical Republicans were the nemesis of Southron people in the post-War era. For that reason many Southron people were staunch Democrats for generations, until the Democrats became insanely liberal and anti-white.
The War Between the States had greater costs than the billions of dollars and the 600,000 lives. It did irreparable damage to North-South relations, it set in motion our current 'politically correct' obsession, and even worse, it turned our Republic away from the Jeffersonian model and towards the Lincolnian, imperial, centralized, big-government model. It is incomprehensible that any conservative who claims to favor smaller government and more local control would think that this change has been for the better.
Confederate General Patrick Cleburne said:
Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.
If this cause, that is dear to my heart, is doomed to fail, I pray Heaven may let me fail with it, while my face is toward the enemy and my arm battling for that which I know is right.
I am with the South in death, in victory or defeat. I believe the North is about to wage a brutal and unholy war on a people who have done them no wrong, in violation of the constitution and the fundamental principles of the government. They no longer acknowledge that all government derives its validity from the consent of the governed."
General Wade Hampton:
If we were wrong in our contest, then the Declaration of Independence of 1776 was a grave mistake and the revolution to which it led was a crime. If Washington was a patriot; Lee cannot have been a rebel."
For Southern patriots, that the South was right as to the principle of State's rights vs. Federal power is not in question.
But as to Dr. Paul's points, there are many ways to approach the question of whether the Civil War was justified, or whether there was not a better way to free the slaves. I think Dr. Paul and others are right; why could we not have freed the slaves as Britain did?
The liberals who are feigning shock over what Dr. Paul said might stop and think: wouldn't the 'peaceful solution' have been prefererable? Or is the peaceful solution only recommended when our enemies are 'Others'?
I really don't see how a liberal can make any kind of consistent and coherent argument against Dr. Paul's statements. I would like to see how the peace-and-love crowd would be able to argue that the War Between the States, with its half a million dead, was justified, when there were other options.
However Dr. Paul decides to respond to this media-driven controversy, I would bet that he will not back down or pander. It would be out of character for him to do so. And above all else, I believe Dr. Paul is a man of integrity and principle. He's stayed true to his principles for his years of public life, unlike most politicians.
MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."
REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist..
MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.
REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.''
Given that Dr. Paul criticized Abraham Lincoln, who is a near-deity for some, and given that he dared to question whether the sacred cause of 'ending slavery' was worth more than a half-million American lives -- in addition of course to the financial costs -- it was guaranteed that there would be a cry of PC indignation about Dr. Paul's words.
AOL on their home page had a poll asking about Ron Paul's statements regarding Lincoln and the War Between the States. It appears as though the poll has been discontinued. From what I have heard the poll was running against Dr. Paul's point of view. That's not surprising, given the heavy indoctrination the schools administer in their 'history' classes, and given that many people get their information on these matters from unreliable sources like the very Politically Correct History Channel.
Those of us who are Ron Paul supporters will no doubt be subjected to ignorant questions about this issue; I expect to hear 'how can you support a candidate who thinks we shouldn't have ended slavery?' 'How can you support a candidate who thinks the Civil Rights Act was a bad thing?' These issues are so sacrosanct in our society that it's to be expected that many people will have a predictable knee-jerk response and immediately mount their PC high horse and assume their best morally superior air when asking these questions.
I won't take up the Civil Rights Act issue at this time; that will be for another blog entry.
Now, nobody wants to be in the position of attempting to defend slavery, and I am not going to try it. Slavery is history in the Western world -- except in cases where immigrants have re-introduced it into our country -- so if any hyperventilating liberal supposes that anybody is proposing to re-introduce slavery or 'Jim Crow', they can relax and stop being hysterical. But the fact is, the question should be asked: why do we now consider slavery, specifically the slavery once practiced in America, as the ultimate evil, the most heinous crime and sin ever committed, short of 'genocide'? Why are we still rending our clothes about it a century and a half after we put an end to it? Why are the people who make such an issue of slavery unwilling or unable to see any evil in the slavery practiced even now by 'diverse' Third World cultures? The idea that we condemn ourselves, our ancestors, and our culture for every failing while giving Third World people a pass is part of a consistent theme in liberal multicultural ideology. Third-worlders, it seems, are children who are not held accountable for their actions. Where is the equality in that attitude? If we are all equal in every respect, they need to be held accountable to the same unforgiving standards to which we hold Western cultures. Anything else is a kind of 'racism' because it implies that the 'diverse' cultures are, well, primitive and unable to live up to the high standards we apply to our Western culture.
Maybe that is in fact the reality but pin a liberal to the wall and ask them to defend that position, and see what happens.
The idea that slavery, as a fruit of 'racism', is a unique evil, surpassing most evils, is something that is assumed in our day. Why? Yes, I know it violates our supposed 'American creed' that 'all men are created equal,' but there are many other outrages which should command the same outrage, but which do not.
Child labor was a great evil, which was practiced until the last century in Western countries; we've all read of children working long hours at hard or dangerous jobs, sometimes going to an early grave because of the harshness of their lives. Why is this not considered at least as serious an evil as slavery? I would argue that it is worse. Obviously slavery is popularly deemed worst, because of the racial issue, which has assumed paramount importance in our weird post-modern morality. Race seems to trump all. We can insult or criticize almost anyone, even God himself, but we can't criticize or fail to properly defer to those of racial 'victim' status.
I truly think that most Americans, without fully informing themselves and thinking it through, have simply accepted that the question of slavery and the War Between the States are issues that must simply not be examined; slavery, so this line of thought goes, was the ultimate evil and therefore sacrificing over half a million lives and laying waste to the South were necessary acts, and the result was worth it.
But was it the most humane thing to emancipate the slaves suddenly by decree, when many or most of them were not prepared or equipped to make the transition to a life of 'freedom'? A gradual freeing would have been wiser as well as more humane. It would have been better to prepare slaves for freedom, but the liberals and radicals of the time were not concerned with real-life consequences, but as always, were only concerned with serving their utopian ideology regardless of the cost in human terms.
Thomas DiLorenzo, who is a scholar who dissents from the Lincoln cult, writes here how paradoxically, libertarian abolitionist Lysander Spooner defended the South's right to secede, and disagreed with Lincoln's actions. [Aside: Spooner is one of my New England kinsmen, so I am related to several abolitionists as well as to Southron slaveowners.]
Spooner and his entire family were abolitionists for decades prior to the war. He authored The Unconstitutionality of Slavery in 1845, which made him a great hero to the entire abolitionist movement; advocated the nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act by juries (a purely Jeffersonian, states� rights position); called for slave insurrections aided by abolitionists like himself; and even hatched a plot to kidnap Virginia Governor Henry Wise and hold him as a hostage in exchange for John Brown.
Spooner also saw through the phoniness of the Lincoln regime and its diabolical quest for empire at the expense of hundreds of thousands of American lives. As George H. Smith writes, "Spooner stood nearly alone among radical abolitionists in his defense of the right of the South to secede from the Union" (p. xvii). To Spooner, the right of secession was "a right that was embodied in the American Revolution." Moreover, Lincoln�s war "erupted for a purely pecuniary consideration," not any moral reason.
Spooner�s views on the war are laid out in his famous 1870 essay, "No Treason," published as part of the above-mentioned Lysander Spooner Reader. He understood that the Northern business interests who were the backbone of the Republican Party of his time (also Lincoln�s time), whom he labeled "lenders of blood money," had "for a long series of years previous to the war, been the willing accomplices of the slave-holders in perverting the government from the purpose of liberty and justice . . ." (p. 117). It was such interests, after all, that monopolized (and profited immensely from) the transatlantic slave trade, which was always centered in Providence, Rhode Island and Boston, Massachusetts.
The Northern financiers of the war who lent millions to the Lincoln government did not do so for "any love of liberty or justice," wrote Spooner, but for "the control of [Southern] markets" through tariff extortion (p. 118). Mocking the argument of the "lenders of blood money" as they addressed the South he wrote: "If you [the South] will not pay us our price [i.e., a high tariff] . . . we will secure the same price (and keep control of your markets) by helping your slaves against you, and using them as our tools for maintaining dominion over you; for the control of your markets . . ." (p. 118).
[...]
Referring to President Ulysses S. Grant, Spooner also noted that the Northern business interests who controlled the Republican Party had "put their sword into the hands of the chief murderer of the war," who at the time was hypocritically saying, "Let us have peace" (p. 118). Spooner interpreted the crushing of the Southern secessionists at the hands of "murderers" like Grant as essentially saying: "Submit quietly to all the robbery and slavery [i.e., via tariffs and inflation] we have arranged for you, and you can have peace" (p. 118). The Republican Party rhetoric of "saving the union" and "abolishing slavery" was all a sham, said Spooner. "The pretense that the 'abolition of slavery� was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of 'maintaining the national honor,�" the famous abolitionist wrote (p. 119). It was the U.S. government that established and enforced slavery, he noted. The U.S. flag flew over an American slave society almost twenty times longer than the Confederate flag did.
[...] Spooner also ridiculed Lincoln�s ridiculous and absurd statement in the Gettysburg Address that he was waging war for the principle of "a government of consent," or government of the people, by the people, for the people, as his flowery rhetoric put it. In reality, the type of "consent" created by Lincoln�s war was: "everybody must consent, or be shot" (p. 120). This idea "was the dominant one on which the war was carried on." (Another libertarian icon, H.L. Mencken, was of the same opinion). "All of these cries of having 'abolished slavery,� of having 'saved the country,� of having 'preserved the union,� of establishing a 'government of consent,� and of 'maintaining the national honor,� are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats," the great abolitionist declared (p. 121).
Lysander Spooner vigorously attacked the Lincoln regime and defended the Confederacy�s right to secede with the libertarian language of natural rights, consent, and social contract. He recognized that this was also the language of Jefferson Davis�s First Inaugural Address, and that the war was not initiated to "free the slaves," something that neither Lincoln nor the U.S. Congress ever said or thought, even if grossly uneducated Americans do today.''
So really, Ron Paul is not saying something totally novel or 'radical' when he criticizes the War Between the States; he is echoing what others before him, libertarians like Spooner as well as true conservatives, have said.
The War Between the States, which was not strictly the altruistic crusade it purported to be, also left irreparable damage in terms of the relationship between the South and the North; it is hard to forgive and forget when your loved ones have been killed, your home burned to the ground, your crops destroyed, and an occupation government (which the Reconstruction government was) imposed. The North, with Reconstruction, clearly had a punitive agenda in mind. They wanted to utterly humiliate and abase the South. Depriving many citizens of their franchise and their rights as citizens, while putting yesterday's slaves in office, giving them authority over their former masters was malicious in intent, and served no good purpose. It was because of historical episodes like that that my Southron ancestors were firmly anti-Republican for a century. The radical Republicans were the nemesis of Southron people in the post-War era. For that reason many Southron people were staunch Democrats for generations, until the Democrats became insanely liberal and anti-white.
The War Between the States had greater costs than the billions of dollars and the 600,000 lives. It did irreparable damage to North-South relations, it set in motion our current 'politically correct' obsession, and even worse, it turned our Republic away from the Jeffersonian model and towards the Lincolnian, imperial, centralized, big-government model. It is incomprehensible that any conservative who claims to favor smaller government and more local control would think that this change has been for the better.
Confederate General Patrick Cleburne said:
Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.
If this cause, that is dear to my heart, is doomed to fail, I pray Heaven may let me fail with it, while my face is toward the enemy and my arm battling for that which I know is right.
I am with the South in death, in victory or defeat. I believe the North is about to wage a brutal and unholy war on a people who have done them no wrong, in violation of the constitution and the fundamental principles of the government. They no longer acknowledge that all government derives its validity from the consent of the governed."
General Wade Hampton:
If we were wrong in our contest, then the Declaration of Independence of 1776 was a grave mistake and the revolution to which it led was a crime. If Washington was a patriot; Lee cannot have been a rebel."
For Southern patriots, that the South was right as to the principle of State's rights vs. Federal power is not in question.
But as to Dr. Paul's points, there are many ways to approach the question of whether the Civil War was justified, or whether there was not a better way to free the slaves. I think Dr. Paul and others are right; why could we not have freed the slaves as Britain did?
The liberals who are feigning shock over what Dr. Paul said might stop and think: wouldn't the 'peaceful solution' have been prefererable? Or is the peaceful solution only recommended when our enemies are 'Others'?
I really don't see how a liberal can make any kind of consistent and coherent argument against Dr. Paul's statements. I would like to see how the peace-and-love crowd would be able to argue that the War Between the States, with its half a million dead, was justified, when there were other options.
However Dr. Paul decides to respond to this media-driven controversy, I would bet that he will not back down or pander. It would be out of character for him to do so. And above all else, I believe Dr. Paul is a man of integrity and principle. He's stayed true to his principles for his years of public life, unlike most politicians.
Labels: American History, Presidential Candidates, Revisionist History, Ron Paul, StateS Rights
0 comment Wednesday, July 23, 2014 | admin
Did you know that there is a French blog for Ron Paul?
Ron Paul France
There is also a Belgian blog, and a Brazilian one. Ron Paul is evidently drawing interest and attention around the globe.
Michael Nystrom, editor of the Daily Paul blog, says
For the first time ever, last week the site passed 4,000 visitors in one day, and not two days later passed 5,000. Yesterday, thanks in part to the bump from the Wired News article that mentioned the site, we hit an all time high of 5236 visitors in one day. This is 100% growth since the end of May, and tremendous growth from back in February, when Ron Paul's grandson Matt Pyeatt started blogging on the site. Back then, 400 visitors was a good day!
Of course these figures are just reflecting the larger trend moving through society. There is a hunger for truth that is not being fulfilled by MSM and the current political leadership. Ron Paul just passed 18,000 YouTube subscribers. This is tops, by far, of any of the candidates. ''
I think Nystrom is correct that there IS a hunger for truth, and the old media and our current crop of discredited and corrupt politicians cannot provide what this country needs. We need a complete change, and I think the Paul phenomenon is a manifestation of that genuine searching for truth and for a desperately needed alternative to the failed status quo.
The GOP loyalists who have been so disparaging of Ron Paul and his supporters are fooling themselves if they write this phenomenon off as just a few zealots spamming online polls, and hyping their numbers. Clearly the traffic to the Paul blog is one indicator of the interest that is out there.
I know that in my own site statistics, there seem to be many people googling Ron Paul's name, looking for news and commentary about Ron Paul. The Republicans are whistling in the dark by pretending that Ron Paul has just a few fanatical supporters. They only wish that there was as much interest in their stale candidates as there is in Ron Paul.
Tom Tancredo could and should be distinguishing himself from the rest of the herd of candidates, but for whatever reason, he has not been very visible in this campaign so far. (Oh, and by the way, stop by Tancredo's website and sign his Save America petition. Even though the amnesty bill is officially dead, it will reappear in some other form.)
I do wish Ron Paul would speak out on the border issue, since it is crystal-clear, after this amnesty debacle, that the people are highly incensed over our sieve-like borders, and the ongoing invasion. But so far, Paul has not addressed that red-hot issue, choosing to concentrate on the war in Iraq. Maybe this is because the media prefer to highlight the fact that a Republican candidate has dared to defy the party line on Iraq.
In case I haven't posted this before, here is the link to the Ron Paul archives, where you may read articles by Dr. Paul on a number of issues. Read what he has to say on other issues such as hate crimes, the stem cell debate, economic issues, the United Nations, and neocons.
I can't find much to disagree with in his thinking; he is sound on all the important things, and sadly, I can't say that about most of the candidates.
Ron Paul France
There is also a Belgian blog, and a Brazilian one. Ron Paul is evidently drawing interest and attention around the globe.
Michael Nystrom, editor of the Daily Paul blog, says
For the first time ever, last week the site passed 4,000 visitors in one day, and not two days later passed 5,000. Yesterday, thanks in part to the bump from the Wired News article that mentioned the site, we hit an all time high of 5236 visitors in one day. This is 100% growth since the end of May, and tremendous growth from back in February, when Ron Paul's grandson Matt Pyeatt started blogging on the site. Back then, 400 visitors was a good day!
Of course these figures are just reflecting the larger trend moving through society. There is a hunger for truth that is not being fulfilled by MSM and the current political leadership. Ron Paul just passed 18,000 YouTube subscribers. This is tops, by far, of any of the candidates. ''
I think Nystrom is correct that there IS a hunger for truth, and the old media and our current crop of discredited and corrupt politicians cannot provide what this country needs. We need a complete change, and I think the Paul phenomenon is a manifestation of that genuine searching for truth and for a desperately needed alternative to the failed status quo.
The GOP loyalists who have been so disparaging of Ron Paul and his supporters are fooling themselves if they write this phenomenon off as just a few zealots spamming online polls, and hyping their numbers. Clearly the traffic to the Paul blog is one indicator of the interest that is out there.
I know that in my own site statistics, there seem to be many people googling Ron Paul's name, looking for news and commentary about Ron Paul. The Republicans are whistling in the dark by pretending that Ron Paul has just a few fanatical supporters. They only wish that there was as much interest in their stale candidates as there is in Ron Paul.
Tom Tancredo could and should be distinguishing himself from the rest of the herd of candidates, but for whatever reason, he has not been very visible in this campaign so far. (Oh, and by the way, stop by Tancredo's website and sign his Save America petition. Even though the amnesty bill is officially dead, it will reappear in some other form.)
I do wish Ron Paul would speak out on the border issue, since it is crystal-clear, after this amnesty debacle, that the people are highly incensed over our sieve-like borders, and the ongoing invasion. But so far, Paul has not addressed that red-hot issue, choosing to concentrate on the war in Iraq. Maybe this is because the media prefer to highlight the fact that a Republican candidate has dared to defy the party line on Iraq.
In case I haven't posted this before, here is the link to the Ron Paul archives, where you may read articles by Dr. Paul on a number of issues. Read what he has to say on other issues such as hate crimes, the stem cell debate, economic issues, the United Nations, and neocons.
I can't find much to disagree with in his thinking; he is sound on all the important things, and sadly, I can't say that about most of the candidates.
Labels: Gop, Presidential Candidates, Republicans, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo
0 comment Wednesday, June 18, 2014 | admin
Just a few Ron Paul links:
I don't know if my readers have heard about this yet, but Rep. Paul has proposed a Constitutional amendment which would end birthright citizenship.
H.J. Res. 46: Ron Paul's proposed amendment to the Constitution
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.''
This is an issue that gets too little attention from our politicians and the crowd of candidates. Kudos to Ron Paul for addressing it.
And here,
Stupid Party
Kara Hopkins writes about the reaction of the GOP to Ron Paul's candidacy -- didn't I predict it? Much of the vituperation is coming from the Republican side:
It was a dangerous night in South Carolina: the ten candidates for the Republican nomination gathered, and a debate broke out. Damage control was swift. Party elders rushed to excommunicate the instigator. Pundits howled, bloggers convulsed: "moonbat on Kool Aid," "crackpot," "cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs."
But for all that pious fury, a candidate few Americans had heard of owned the next day�s headlines. Ron Paul had committed the sin of truth�and the reaction revealed much about the party that shunned him.
[...] It�s come to this. The party once known for its sobriety wants to be lulled with stories about evil forces and immaculate heroes. Prudence yields to utopianism, intellectual combat to blind thuggery. Gone are the wisemen who cast long shadows and wrote great books. Lost too is the Right�s old default that distrusted power and those who want it, replaced by a vision of the irreproachable state.''
And James Ostrowski gives us the Ron Paul Revolution Halftime Report
...I said that the Ron Paul campaign could be a political earthquake. The clues are all there: young people and people previously not politically active are forming the core of his support; he is drawing support from the left and the right; Democrats for Paul groups are starting up; crowds are building and lies and smears are bouncing harmlessly off Ron Paul like so many bullets off Superman�s chest. In his recent media appearances, Ron is in what great athletes call "the zone."
What makes an earthquake is pent-up energy suddenly unleashed with tremendous force. A lot of problems that can only be addressed in a Jeffersonian framework of peace and freedom have been festering for too long in Hamiltonian America. A lot of people have been waiting a long time for a Jeffersonian to run for president and they�re going to make the most of it.
"There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat. And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures."
Mike Tuggle weighs in on
What Ron Paul's run means
...Ron Paul has aired a revolutionary message which has sparked the imaginatons of the American people, a message that the powers that be cannot stuff back into the bottle. Paul�s ideas may well spark new interest in the real meaning of the nation�s founding documents and principles�and who knows where that will lead? ''
And finally,
Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Ron Paul
All the above links are worth reading in their entirety.
I don't know if my readers have heard about this yet, but Rep. Paul has proposed a Constitutional amendment which would end birthright citizenship.
H.J. Res. 46: Ron Paul's proposed amendment to the Constitution
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.''
This is an issue that gets too little attention from our politicians and the crowd of candidates. Kudos to Ron Paul for addressing it.
And here,
Stupid Party
Kara Hopkins writes about the reaction of the GOP to Ron Paul's candidacy -- didn't I predict it? Much of the vituperation is coming from the Republican side:
It was a dangerous night in South Carolina: the ten candidates for the Republican nomination gathered, and a debate broke out. Damage control was swift. Party elders rushed to excommunicate the instigator. Pundits howled, bloggers convulsed: "moonbat on Kool Aid," "crackpot," "cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs."
But for all that pious fury, a candidate few Americans had heard of owned the next day�s headlines. Ron Paul had committed the sin of truth�and the reaction revealed much about the party that shunned him.
[...] It�s come to this. The party once known for its sobriety wants to be lulled with stories about evil forces and immaculate heroes. Prudence yields to utopianism, intellectual combat to blind thuggery. Gone are the wisemen who cast long shadows and wrote great books. Lost too is the Right�s old default that distrusted power and those who want it, replaced by a vision of the irreproachable state.''
And James Ostrowski gives us the Ron Paul Revolution Halftime Report
...I said that the Ron Paul campaign could be a political earthquake. The clues are all there: young people and people previously not politically active are forming the core of his support; he is drawing support from the left and the right; Democrats for Paul groups are starting up; crowds are building and lies and smears are bouncing harmlessly off Ron Paul like so many bullets off Superman�s chest. In his recent media appearances, Ron is in what great athletes call "the zone."
What makes an earthquake is pent-up energy suddenly unleashed with tremendous force. A lot of problems that can only be addressed in a Jeffersonian framework of peace and freedom have been festering for too long in Hamiltonian America. A lot of people have been waiting a long time for a Jeffersonian to run for president and they�re going to make the most of it.
"There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat. And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures."
Mike Tuggle weighs in on
What Ron Paul's run means
...Ron Paul has aired a revolutionary message which has sparked the imaginatons of the American people, a message that the powers that be cannot stuff back into the bottle. Paul�s ideas may well spark new interest in the real meaning of the nation�s founding documents and principles�and who knows where that will lead? ''
And finally,
Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Ron Paul
All the above links are worth reading in their entirety.
Labels: Gop, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Republicans, Ron Paul