How would you answer this anti-Ron Paul article?

[emazur]

http://www.the-thinking-man.com/apotheosis-of-ron-paul.html

I am a big fan of Ron Paul but will admit I have not gone over everything he has said with a fine tooth comb. Even if everything in this article is true, I'd still say he's a quantum leap ahead of other politicians in America. So how would you address those accusations?

[gls]

This article is nonsense. Paul is a strong advocate of individual liberty and would vote that way if he served at the state level. The U.S. Constitution limits the federal government to a few specific enumerated powers, and every vote he casts is based on this fact. Just because he took some federalist positions in his GOP presidential primary campaign doesn't mean squat.

What else does he got? He doesn't agree with Paul on abortion. Well, Paul wants to leave it up to the states. Obviously this guy doesn't mind a powerful federal government when it comes to protecting "rights".

The earmark thing. This is old news. People in Paul's district are entitled to get at least some of the money that they paid in federal income tax back in some manner. It's not as if otherwise the money wouldn't be spent. It's already in the pipeline at that point. Yes it would be better if the money was never stolen from the community in the first place, but that's not the situation.

What else? Newsletters? <YAWN> He didn't write them. He was busy with his medical practice. None of his known statements, writing or actions reflect any hint of racism whatsoever. His policy proposals, if enacted, would greatly benefit minorities (as well as all people).

[mczerone]

You should paraphrase some of the things you'd like us to rebut, so we don't have to increase this guy's traffic. (assuming, of course, that isn't your sole goal in posting here)

I clicked anyway - and he has some valid points. Paul does prefer the tyranny of the states over the tyranny of the Federal government. And Paul is a christian.

However, calling Paul (and Lew Rockwell) a homophobe, without justification, is a cheap shot, and incorrect.

Further, Paul has only stated that he thinks that curriculum decisions in schools are best left to the local districts, where parents have a say - not, as the author implies (but does not specifically say), that creationism should be taught in all schools. (The author further implies that ALL religious people think this, which is obviously incorrect)

The author's two-paragraph rundown of the abortion issue is superficial, short sighted, overlooks proposed legislation by Paul, and only plays on the emotion of the issue. He concludes by falsely assuming all State laws (at least on this issue) will be passed by popular vote and calling Paul's position a tyranny of the majority.

He then mentions Paul's "I make sure my district's earmarks are in there, but vote against the bill" philosophy, and dismisses it with a rhetorical question, but doesn't even go as far as calling it a poor strategy, let alone anti-libertarian, wrong, or unethical.

And the newsletters. I can't defend these, and had to personally jump that hurdle to be able to support him in the primary, but the answer to the racist charge is summed up by looking at the philosophy of freedom, allowing all people to be INDIVIDUALS, and freely associating, rather than the collectivist mindset of placing everyone in race groups to begin with.

The author doesn't even get on him for the racism therein, but somehow the "Blame America first" policy they espouse:


If you're unfamiliar with this newsletter, please don't despair: you've read it many times before from neo-Marxists like Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, Howard Zinn, Norman Mailer, and an army of others: the standard anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, blame-America-first rhetoric.

The New Republic said this about it:

What [the newsletters] reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing – but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.

True.

Indeed, it's in the arena of foreign policy that Paul is at his precious worst – and that's saying a lot.

A few quick points about this: I think this author may be the first to place all of those names in the same sentence. How Chompsky (a populist leftist, IIRC), Vidal (a well respected acadmeic), and Paul fit together is beyond me (I'm not too familiar with Zinn or Mailer's politics). Next, The New Republic does nothing but call these guys names, and the author accuses them of hating not only the Nationalists of Israel (Zionists), but all of those who practice Judaism, which is absurd. These authors are so seeping with hate that they project it into those who have none. Next, any author that in good faith uses the phrase "Blame America First" has no logical leg to stand on. Which "America" are we talking about? Our "benevolent leaders"? The States? The political system? The majority of the population? The Dissenters? The soil? The ACLU? Colombia (S. America)? Paul only "blames" those specific INDIVIDUALS he believes are at fault for problems - claiming that this means he is "blaming America" is lumping together every single option I rhetorically laid out above, in addition to any other meaning of America, and making them an indistinct homogeneous mass. Lastly (about this topic), confusing one's (hypothetical) dislike for a religion for a "foreign policy" is a major conflation of ideas put forth by the author, and any person that can compartmentalize both their religion and national origin should be able to see the fallacy here.

The next section is even more convoluted and disingenuous:

The premise of the book is that American occupation is what compels these otherwise gentle Islamofascists into their suicide missions. Marc Sageman, however, author of the more authoritative Understanding Terror Networks, says this about it:

"In terms of al Qaeda, [Robert Pape] is dead wrong."

Osama bin Laden, incidentally, says the same thing as Marc Sageman. Still, Paul would have us believe Ron Paul and Robert Pape instead.

Has the author never heard of blowback? And Paul has more basis than one marginal author, despite the presentation. Further, what is this unsourced, uncited material from bin Laden? And of course "Paul would have us believe Ron Paul", don't you want people to believe you? And what is the alternative theory for why the terrorists hate for America (or "the West")? That we have Nikes and iPods? Or that we are a nationalistic Empire that invades their way of life, determines their farming strategies, and props up unelected, unsupported leaders while supporting either side of any number of conflicts with military training, arms, and some green "monopoly" money?

I'm not claiming Paul has all the right answers, but this author has all the wrong attacks, and presents no alternative (Except, of course, listing the torchbearers of the State and equivocating them with Paul himself).

I hope no one else clicks on this.

[heavenlyboy34]

This article is nonsense. Paul is a strong advocate of individual liberty and would vote that way if he served at the state level. The U.S. Constitution limits the federal government to a few specific enumerated powers, and every vote he casts is based on this fact. Just because he took some federalist positions in his GOP presidential primary campaign doesn't mean squat.


I didn't catch any Federalism in his campaign. I must have been busy when that happened. Could you remind me? :confused:

[ninepointfive]

right, well this is an interesting read for sure... I see that there are many claims that can simply be disproved by a point by point link to sources which back that all of the author's accusations are false:

1. Paul is not a homophobe (they snuck that in there quickly).
2. Paul is for ending the war on drugs and can be quoted in a video (the one where he is talking about obama not having real change to a woman who asked the question in the audience).
3. That Paul does favor local government, though the Constitution and Bill of Rights protects and guarantees your rights in those states above all other local jurisdiction.
4. The racist letters weren't written by him, But is still a lack of oversight (Show the picture of him as a doctor helping a black family).
5. Blowback from foreign intervention does indeed instill hatred! What would you think of Russia or China or any nation coming into your land and killing people, while rigging your government to install a crony political party of their choosing?
6. If he has ever advocated placing the 10 Commandments in a public school, I'd be a little surprised. Paul of all people should understand a separation of church and state. Of course, Paul doesn't advocate federal government sponsored education anyway.


well, I wasn't going to make that list... but i guess I was compelled in the end because I can see this coming up sometime again.

[gls]

I didn't catch any Federalism in his campaign. I must have been busy when that happened. Could you remind me? :confused:

I meant "Constitutional", as in he believes strongly in individual liberty but also recognizes that it is a Republic. I confuse myself with these terms sometimes. :D

[nate895]

I meant "Constitutional", as in he believes strongly in individual liberty but also recognizes that it is a Republic. I confuse myself with these terms sometimes. :D

No, you were correct, the original Federalist Party stole the name. Federalism is the belief in a confederation or federation where the central government is limited to enumerated power, while the states (or whatever they are called in that country) exercise all other authorities.

As for the article, calling Paul anti-liberty is probably the dumbest thing I ever heard. This man is probably a libertine who thinks his views are superior to other men's and therefore the government should enforce his stances to the local level. Why should people in New York be able to determine whether children in Tuscaloosa look at the ten commandments or learn about creationism? Doesn't sound very open-minded, or libertarian.

[mczerone]

No, you were correct, the original Federalist Party stole the name. Federalism is the belief in a confederation or federation where the central government is limited to enumerated power, while the states (or whatever they are called in that country) exercise all other authorities.

Which is the current Federalist Society's view. Just like the labels "Republican" and "Liberal" have become so convoluted, "Federalist" came to represent directly opposite views over time.

[emazur]

No, I'm a huge Paul fan and I wasn't posting here to increase his traffic though I've read a couple other articles on that site that I thought were well done, but like I said I haven't gone over RP with a fine toothed comb so I thought I'd get input from you guys. Thank you to those who have replied so far. How about the flag burning statement though - is Paul's stance not a violation of free speech granted by the constitution?

[nate895]

No, I'm a huge Paul fan and I wasn't posting here to increase his traffic though I've read a couple other articles on that site that I thought were well done, but like I said I haven't gone over RP with a fine toothed comb so I thought I'd get input from you guys. Thank you to those who have replied so far. How about the flag burning statement though - is Paul's stance not a violation of free speech granted by the constitution?

His position would be the states should decide the matter (though I have never heard him bring up this issue), and all states have protections of the right of free speech in their constitutions, therefore that would also protect flag burning.

[mczerone]

No, I'm a huge Paul fan and I wasn't posting here to increase his traffic though I've read a couple other articles on that site that I thought were well done, but like I said I haven't gone over RP with a fine toothed comb so I thought I'd get input from you guys. Thank you to those who have replied so far. How about the flag burning statement though - is Paul's stance not a violation of free speech granted by the constitution?

That was honestly the first I remember seeing about the flag-burning stuff, and I've rebutted a ton of Paul's attackers. Much like some of his more religious-based proposed legislation, I can only say: he's not the perfect choice, merely the best. Would you rather have some fraudulent Flag-burning ban, or FISA? Or the Patriot Act? Or an economic implosion?

Ideally, he wouldn't have a few things on his record, but mostly they are just superficial imperfections in a position that has become more pro-individual-liberty over the years (e.g. his position on capital punishment, parting with Reagan's philosophies).

Ultimately, every one of us is not supporting the man Ron Paul, but the ideas of Liberty. He is a current focus of the movement, and a flawed one. Maybe one day we will have some leader without any blemishes, but until then we should focus on philosophy and creating a popular movement, and not on defending Ron Paul. The author of the blog seems very receptive to what I heard Ron Paul say in the campaign about personal liberty, but seems blinded by attacks on the individual. Further, the blog-author is squarely within a group of thinking that praises the war on terror, the war in Iraq, and governmental foreign aid - and in these areas he clearly disagrees with Paul, Lew Rockwell, most all of us here, thus he isn't worth convincing that Paul is an alright politician. He first needs to learn why the policy he follows is hindering and endangering us, not protecting us and making us safer.

[awake]

This is a hit piece..

They must find it incalculably difficult to come at Ron Paul, as he has been through out his career, principled and disciplined about his views. So it is no surprise when some comes along to try and smear him it looks so blatantly obvious. Notice he states right away that he agrees with Paul on Austrian economics...

"the Austrian School of Economics in particular, of which I myself am a proponent."

Well, if you're a proponent, then you must understand that economics is the key to understanding liberty and its protection or destruction.

Control at the state and local levels would allow more control of issues in the hands of the people. The smaller and more decentralized the government structure lends in favor for the local man to rise to office and affect his fate in a much easier fashion. As we move to larger more centralized government power in this day and age , many will start to see the little or no impact they posses on their daily life choices. They will see the further evidence of this loss of control the more they turn over their personal responsibility in the protection of their god given and constitutional rights. [Sarcasm to follow] For you can't possibly take care of yourself, as you do not possess the intelligence and understanding that the international boards of experts posses. please just let the people who know whats best for you ensure your safety and everything will be just fine.

[mczerone]

This is a hit piece..

They must find it incalculably difficult to come at Ron Paul, as he has been through out his career, principled and disciplined about his views. So it is no surprise when some comes along to try and smear him it looks so blatantly obvious. Notice he states right away that he agrees with Paul on Austrian economics...

"the Austrian School of Economics in particular, of which I myself am a proponent."

Well, if you're a proponent, then you must understand that economics is the key to understanding liberty and its protection or destruction.

Control at the state and local levels would allow more control of issues in the hands of the people. The smaller and more decentralized the government structure lends in favor for the local man to rise to office and affect his fate in a much easier fashion. As we move to larger more centralized government power in this day and age , many will start to see the little or no impact they posses on their daily life choices. They will see the further evidence of this loss of control the more they turn over their personal responsibility in the protection of their god given and constitutional rights. [Sarcasm to follow] For you can't possibly take care of yourself, as you do not possess the intelligence and understanding that the international boards of experts posses. please just let the people who know whats best for you ensure your safety and everything will be just fine.

Great points, and to expand: the Federal government is supposed to check the tyranny of the states JUST AS THE STATES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO CHECK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! There was a horizontal AND vertical separation of power at one point. Now we have ONE government, headed by one department, with lapdogs handing out money on one side of him, a court that has been reduced to a political tool on the other, and 50 (more or less) subordinate farm-teams that serve as a feeder system for political officers.

The Constitution, which was THE focal point of Paul's campaign, would explain all of this, if only people would read it, and recognize that our government is SUPPOSED to be limited by it.

[awake]

The Constitution , of any country , is the only contract that the sheep have with the wolves. If the flock wants to give up the agreement then expect the inevitable outcome.

[angelatc]

If Pape is wrong then so is the 9/11 Commission.

Flag burning: Best to read what the man says. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul99.html

[Number19]

Ron Paul has never run for, or been elected to, any state or local level office and any attempt to state what his position, or philosophy, would be under those circumstances is pure conjecture. Rep Paul properly limits his political position to the federal level and is a strict Constitutionalist. In defining what is Constitutional, he is a Jeffersonian and not a Hamiltonian. The writer of the article is correct in labeling Rep Paul an anti-federalist. Hamiltonian's were known as Federalists.

"...Thus, if this amendment simply restored the state's authority to ban flag burning, I would enthusiastically support it....".

"It" references back to "amendment" and not the act of "flag burning". Paul is totally correct in the structure of his statement and one cannot infer from it what his position on flag burning would be were he a state legislator.

This is just one example of how wrong this writer is in his analysis.

One other thing I would point out, at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, state sanctioned religion was not uncommon. Some states rewrote their state constitutions, after the U.S. Constitution, to reflect the new secularism, but some states did not do so right away. Massachusetts was one that did not do so for a number of years. It was several years after the ratification of the Constitution, but under their own will and not that of the federal government, the people of this state, through their state legislature, voted to abolish their state religion.

This writer is again wrong and Ron Paul is right.

[Aldanga]

There is one failure I often see in people arguing against Dr. Paul's ideas that the states deserve the right to make their own laws: Personal choice.

The idea that the states (the People) can make their own laws and decide for themselves how they will live together and what that means is the basis of libertarian principles, is it not? Freedom of choice and lifestyle.

That's how I've always seen it. If you want to live differently than I and make laws prohibiting certain things, go ahead. Your community has the right to do that.

[satchelmcqueen]

i read this about a year ago, and it is wrong in many areas. most people who do not support paul seem to me to always have the weirdest most one sided arguments ive ever heard, and tend to have very little understanding of what liberty and freedom mean, nor do they care as long as they are taken care of by the government and dont have to stand on their own.

and the news letters...

these have been proven false claims years ago and even as late as 07 one of the main guys from the naacp publicly stated that he was friends with paul and the claim that he was racist was totaly false. that news story played once that im aware of for about 10 seconds.

[blocks]

When he writes this:


You see, on Planet Paul, big government is fine, provided that government operates at the state or local level, not federal.

I think what he is missing, is that Dr. Paul works from a federal level. Believe me, I think Dr. Paul would govern a lot differently if he was a Governor or a Mayor as opposed to a President.

[DeadheadForPaul]

This is the classic anti-federalist vs. libertarian dispute

Libertarians tend to dislike the anti-federalist position because libertarians believe in preventing government oppression at all levels.

In contrast, anti-federalists simply believe that local people should make local decisions...meaning that a local community might decide to elect local libertarian politicians or socialist politicians...

[Dary]

How would you answer this anti-Ron Paul article?

Maybe try sarcasm?

Ron Paul is to blame for:

our 11 TRILLION dollars of debt
dragging us into 2 foreign wars
our infrastructure falling apart
our inability to afford health insurance
having to bail out our financial system
having to bail out our automotive industry
having to bail out our credit card companies
unemployment skyrocketing
our jobs being outsourced
our communications being monitored
crime being up
our savings going down
the hated around the world towards Americans
our education system being in shambles
our prison system being overcrowded
our rights being under attack
our houses having lost value

It's all Ron Paul's fault. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[libertea]

What a moron. He(I assume since it's titled "thinking man") has one faulty premise on which everything else is based. He twist Ron Paul's removing tyranny at the federal level, which is his job, into Ron Paul supports tyranny at the state level, which is not his responsibiltiy.

What a misnomer for the blog name.

[CUnknown]

It is a stupid article. But, it has a grain of truth in that Ron Paul is not so much an extreme libertarian as the MSM would have us believe. He really is a Republican, he belongs squarely in the Republican party (of old, anyway). Ron Paul does not want to scrap the Constitution and start completely over again, for example. Extreme libertarians (or anarchists) would want that -- they'd want to start over and rewrite the Constitution to make it even more in support of individual liberty than it already is. They would probably put a clause in there saying you can burn the flag whenever you want, for example.

That's not Ron Paul's way. He is not so extreme. He is actually very mainstream and very conservative (duh) with what he wants to do -- just follow the frickin' Constitution. Go back to the limited government and sound money and civil rights and liberties that it has in there. He doesn't want to start over, he wants to go back to the original intent.

I think his opinion in support of state laws banning flag burning is a shining example of his integrity. He would obviously want to allow flag burning everywhere -- but it's not up to him! It's up to the Constitution and thus the States to decide. If more politicians (and judges) obeyed the law and kept their own personal opinions out of it, we would have a much better Republic for everyone.

[Xenophage]

What a moron. He(I assume since it's titled "thinking man") has one faulty premise on which everything else is based. He twist Ron Paul's removing tyranny at the federal level, which is his job, into Ron Paul supports tyranny at the state level, which is not his responsibiltiy.

What a misnomer for the blog name.

This pretty much sums it up.

The guy is also a foreign policy dimwit.