“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry
is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual —
is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government…
we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood
are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government,
we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought
or unsought, by the military/industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise
of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address to the Nation, 1961 Link
“Ron Paul and I would disagree on many issues. …However, these are policy differences.
They can be negotiated or legislated into a compromise. But on liberty, on human rights,
and on the Constitution, Ron Paul is the only candidate who gets it. //
Liberty is where we begin and end the conversation in America. For far too long,
government has chipped away at the rights of Americans. Ron Paul would reverse that trend. Whatever else he does is secondary to that prime directive.”
- John Thorpe “Forbes” Link
I agree with the sentiments expressed by Mr. Thorpe (a liberal) in the above paragraph. I also agree with those expressed by conservative Steve Deace, “…as much as I disagree with Paul, I’d choose him over the Republicrat ruling class any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.” Link
The fact that individuals from both the left and right of the political spectrum find Ron Paul increasingly attractive is of no little concern to The Powers That Be (TPTB) and their long-knives are already out. Should Ron Paul become the lead, or one of the lead Republican candidates they will attempt to slice and dice him like a Cuisinart — count on it. The MSM, who cannot seem to find Obama’s past history with a bloodhound and a road map, will suddenly become super-sleuths able to sniff out every nook and cranny of Ron Paul’s past — and where the truth does not suit their purposes they will twist it until it does.
It is understandable that the Far Left would oppose Ron Paul because of his stance on state’s rights, limited government, and his staunch defense of the US Constitution. What perplexes me is the animosity shown toward Paul by the purportedly conservative Republican establishment — and there can be no doubt that the GOP elites despise Paul’s positions. Rush Limbaugh has dumped on him, the “conservative” press treats him as a joke, and “conservative” talking heads routinely dismiss him. Recently Neil Cavuto took his fellow pundits at Fox News to task for their blatantly dismissive attitudes toward Ron Paul. Link Link
All of which only makes Ron Paul all the more attractive to me as a candidate, and I suspect that a growing number of conservatives feel similarly — we know how lame “conservative” media can be.
“We the people” are more than a little tired of the condescending arrogance thrown our way by Republican elites and their duplicitous mouthpieces. The truth is that for all of their talk of being conservative, they find Ron Paul’s ideas about limited government anathema. They want big government — they only differ from the liberal elites in their choice of what type of big government we should have. It is of no concern to them that freedom decreases in direct proportion to government increases.
I only recently awoke to just how much negative information TPTB have already put out about Ron Paul, so one of my first tasks has been to bring myself up to speed on what is true about Ron Paul, and what is false. I found that I needed to brush aside much of the “common wisdom” surrounding him.
I have found that many of the “problems” with Ron Paul are not problems at all, and that most of his troublesome positions are in fact either outright fabrications invented by those who oppose him, or statements taken out of context. Granted, there are still a few things that as a conservative make me cringe, but I am sure that liberals can say the same. The thing is, as John Thorpe points out, liberty trumps all. Next to freedom, most all of the other issues that we concern ourselves with become peripheral sideshows — and the one thing that Ron Paul definitely stands for, almost uniquely, is freedom.
For those of you who may not be aware of Ron Paul’s positions regarding several controversial issues, let me give some examples of what I have found out.
Ron Paul’s position on illegal immigration includes physically securing our borders, no amnesty, no welfare for illegal aliens, and ending birthright citizenship. That does not sound like Paul is an open borders La Raza aficionado to me. Link
Ron Paul is not a proponent of abortion. Doctor Paul has delivered over 4,000 babies, and no doubt understands more about the complexities involved in the issue than most of us. As is the case with a number of issues, he has been made out to be a proponent for things that he does not endorse, but simply believes should be left up to the individual states to decide, as per the US Constitution. Link
Ron Paul’s fiscal policies seem to me to be so much more sane than anything I have seen come out of Washington since…well, actually I cannot think of any sane fiscal policy that has come out of Washington. That is to say, Ron Paul’s ideas for responsible fiscal behavior are the sanest things to come out of Washington in a loong time — end the Fed, end taxes, stop the government’s insane spending spree, and clean up rampant corruption. You had better believe TPTB do not like the sound of any of that. Link
Claims that Ron Paul is racist are absurd. Read the quote of his below and judge for yourself:
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups. // The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. …Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.
That bears rereading. Link
John Nichols, writing for NPR on the Ron Paul candidacy notes that “what frightens Republican party leaders [is] the notion that the Grand Old Party might actually base its politics on values, as opposed to pay-to-play deal-making, [which] unsettles the Republican leaders who back only contenders who have been pre-approved by the Wall Street speculators, banksters and corporate CEOs who pay the party’s tab—and kindly pick up some of the bills for the Democrats, as well. And if [Ron Paul] wins Iowa, he could begin a process of transforming the Republican Party into a conservative party. That scares the Republican bosses who currently maintain the party concession on behalf of the Wall Streeters. But it…quite intrigues the folks on Main Street who may be waking up to the fact that the “conservatism” of a Newt Gingrich or a Mitt Romney is a sham argument designed to make the rich richer and to make the rest of us pay for wars of whim and crony-capitalist corruption.” (Italics added) Link
I basically agree with Mr. Nichols, pausing only to mention in passing that the shoe is on the other foot, and that it is mainly the Democrats, not the Republicans, who are in bed with Wall Street. The numbers paint a different story than liberals would have us believe: “These Democrats may claim to be on the side of the Occupy Wall Street Protesters, but the numbers don’t lie. They are clearly capitalizing on the populism of the day while continuing to line their campaign coffers with money from the very people they are now demonizing.” In the spirit of détente I will drop that particular subject for the time being, and move onto Ron Paul’s “anti-war/non-intervention” stance of which much has been written. Link
Not many people alive today remember the time when America was not the world’s “policeman,” but the current state of affairs is a rather recent development that did not start coming into being until shortly after WW II. For most of America’s history the idea of policing the world would have been considered ludicrous.
Todd S. Purdum writing for “Vanity Fair” lays the blame for the rapid expansion of the military/industrial complex at the feet of George Kennan and an article he wrote in 1947 for the Council on Foreign Relations journal “Foreign Affairs.” In his article Keenan outlined the need for America to fight communism in one hot-spot after another. Keenan meant to fight it diplomatically and politically rather than militarily, but no matter, the military/industrial complex was born. (John Bolton in a recent article gives Keenan much less credit, writing that Keenan “was simply a verbalizer for ideas swirling at the State Department” at the time).
In any event, Keenan lived to rue his article and when US troops were sent to Somalia in 1992 he wrote “The dispatch of American armed forces to a seat of operations in a place far from our own shores, and this for what is actually a major police action in another country and in a situation where no defensible American interest is involved—this, obviously, is something that the Founding Fathers of this country never envisaged or would ever have approved. If this is in the American tradition, then it is a very recent tradition.” Link
Exactly Ron Paul’s point — that all of this international military involvement is against the grain of America’s history, and at odds with our founding principles — if not flat out unconstitutional. While our military is engaged in numerous operations overseas, the country that they are “defending” is going to hell in a hand-basket — economically, morally, and culturally.
I recently saw an article headlined “Draft Hillary.” I thought to myself, “great idea!” Issue her an M-16 and let her have at it in Afghanistan. Send some of the more objectionable members of Congress along with her. Let them get blown up, let them deal with suicide bombers, let them deal with insane ROEs in a tar-baby backwater surrounded on all sides by hostiles. We would no doubt see a rapid “attitude-adjustment” on their part. Link
And if we were to successfully colonize Afghanistan — then what? Colonize the surrounding countries of Iran, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Yajikistan, and Pakistan? We have to go after those terrorists you know. Shall we colonize Yemen — we know they hide out there. Somalia? What about Sudan? Where does it end? What brainiac thought up this grand strategy? I support our troops, and I want them out of Afghanistan because I support them.
I am not the non-interventionist that Ron Paul is, but I am for bringing most of our troops back home to regroup and reevaluate things. We should concentrate on getting our own house in order, before we go waltzing around the world telling other folks how to run their business. The United States has the world’s highest divorce rate, we lead the world in rapes, car thefts, and drug use. We are by far the world’s main supplier of pornography, and we possess the planet’s most complicated tax system. We have the most people behind bars, and we have far more foreign military bases that any other country. Oh, and we spend over seven times more on our military than any other country. What’s not to love? Plenty. Link
It is no secret that war is big business and that many powerful people have a vested interest in seeing to it that wars continue unabated. The “defense” industry beats out illegal drugs for profitability — only the oil industry brings in more money. The “death merchants” make out like bandits while our young men and women lose lives, limbs, and heart. Link Link
Speaking of drugs, now might be a good time to point out Ron Paul is not for drug use, again he simply feels that it is something that should be left up to the individual states to decide. (An interesting side note: did you know that Afghanistan’s multi-billion dollar opium trade has rapidly expanded under US occupation? Somehow I doubt that all that money goes to the Taliban). Link
If you are under the delusion that our men and women in uniform are wildly opposed to Ron Paul’s anti-war/isolationist stance, then you will be surprised to learn that Ron Paul receives more donations from military personnel than any other politician — in either political party. Paul Joseph Watson writes “Judging by how their donations have flooded into Ron Paul’s campaign coffers, efforts to characterize Paul’s non-interventionist policy as a fringe viewpoint are clearly without any foundation whatsoever.” Link Link
The meme that Ron Paul is unelectable is rubbish — scare tactics courtesy of TPTB. I “guesstimate” that apart from a small percentage of voters who will find some of Paul’s positions to be beyond the pale (which is of course their right), there is a large majority that may very well end up voting for him..
The Ron Paul revolution is a real across-the-board revolution, and not some dialectical sophistry designed to hoodwink one ideological side or the other. The establishment, no matter what political banner they carry, will fight tooth and nail anyone who threatens their grip on the status quo. They like things just the way they are — with them in charge.
At least in regard to Ron Paul a truce should be called between “we the people” on the left and on the right. Let us agree to disagree, and “keep our eyes on the prize” — our freedom. It is not impossible that “we the people” can win this thing. Link
In truth this is not about left vs. right; it is about up vs. down. Up to freedom, truth, light and hope, or down to darkness, lies, despair and ruin.
As “we the people” move forward toward restoring liberty in our land it would be wise to keep in mind that Ron Paul is only one man, and a revolution should not be about just one person. Using Ron Paul as a figurehead, a touchstone, and a rallying point is fine, but fundamentally this revolution is about “we the people,” and restoring hope and freedom to our children and future generations.
That being said, I wholeheartedly and without reservation endorse Ron Paul for President of the United States . Now let’s go kick some butt — lovingly of course. Power to the people — right on. Link
Born in June of 1951 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Jim O’Neill proudly served in the U.S. Navy from 1970-1974 in both UDT-21 (Underwater Demolition Team) and SEAL Team Two. A member of MENSA, he worked as a commercial diver in the waters off Scotland, India, and the United States. In 1998 while attending the University of South Florida as a journalism student, O’Neill won “First Place” in the “Carol Burnett/University of Hawaii AEJMC Research in Journalism Ethics Award.” The annual contest was set up by Carol Burnett with the money she won from successfully suing the National Enquirer for libel. Over the last few years, Jim has regularly written for Canada Free Press and now has a personal blog, ConstitutionalWrites.com.
Graphics added by Gulag Bound
Subscribe to The Globe
& Malevolence daily email to get the
latest from Noisy Room, Maggie's Notebook, New
Zeal, KeyWiki, and
Gulag Bound each day.