Ben Stein & Young Americans Foundation..

[reduen]

For anyone else who wants to let the Young Americans Foundation know that Ben Stein may not be the best person to represent them... :D

http://www.yaf.org/

[Reason]

http://www.yaf.org/ContactUs.aspx

[reduen]

Uhmmm... I just noticed that the Good Dr. Ron Paul is not on their list of conservative speakers to book either.....! :mad: This will never do....

Be nice though everyone.... ;)

[Reason]

Whose face do you believe is a poor choice for our foundation, Ron Paul or Ben Stein?

Chris

Chris Miranda
Young America’s Foundation
Program Officer
(800) USA-1776
cmiranda@yaf.org


~~


Ben Stein of course.

Did you see the recent exchange between Ben Stein and Ron Paul where Ron Paul advocated a classic conservative position and Ben Stein responded by calling Ron Paul anti-Semitic?

Ben Stein will never be looked at the same ever again.


~~


I didn’t see the debate, so it would be difficult for me to comment.



~~


Original
YouTube - Ron Paul on Larry King 12/28/2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFdG4eySIU8)v=oFdG4eySIU8

RP Response with a challenge to debate Ben Stein
YouTube - Will Ben Stein Debate Ron Paul? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfHrOetcSDA)v=bfHrOetcSDA


~~


I just watched the videos.

One, Stein didn’t say Paul was anti-Semitic. Stein said “…that’s the same anti-Semitic argument we’ve heard…” Stein was criticizing Ron Paul’s argument. Then Ron Paul started to wave his finger and defensively say he’d been attacked viciously.

Look, Ron Paul has worked closely with our organization too. His foreign policy positions don’t sit well with conservatives who don’t want to get along with radical Jihadists. But we don’t ban Ron Paul from working with us, just because we disagree -- like you would do with Ben Stein.



~~

In response toHis foreign policy positions don’t sit well with conservatives who don’t want to get along with radical Jihadists.


Foreign Policy, Welfare, and 9/11 (page 245)

"The tragedy of 9/11 and its aftermath dramatize so clearly how a flawed foreign policy has served to encourage the majoritarians determined to run everyone’s life.

Excessive meddling in the internal affairs of other nations and involving ourselves in every conflict around the globe has not endeared the United States to the oppressed of the world.

The Japanese are tired of us. The South Koreans are tired of us. The Europeans are tired of us. The Central Americans are tired of us. The Filipinos are tired of us. And above all, the Arab Muslims are tired of us.

We believe bin Laden when he takes credit for an attack on the West, and we believe him when he warns us of an impending attack. But we refuse to listen to his explanation of why he and his allies are at war with us.

Bin Laden’s claims are straightforward.

The U.S. defiles Islam with military bases on holy land in Saudi Arabia, its initiation of war against Iraq, with 12 years of persistent bombing, and its dollars and weapons being used against the Palestinians as the Palestinian territory shrinks and Israel’s occupation expands.

There will be no peace in the world for the next 50 years or longer if we refuse to believe why those who are attacking us do it.

To dismiss terrorism as the result of Muslims hating us because we’re rich and free is one of the greatest foreign-policy frauds ever perpetrated on the American people.

Because the propaganda machine, the media, and the government have restated this so many times, the majority now accept it at face value. And the administration gets the political cover it needs to pursue a “holy” war for democracy against the infidels who hate us for our goodness.

Polling on the matter is followed closely and, unfortunately, is far more important than the rule of law. Do we hear the pundits talk of constitutional restraints on the Congress and the administration? No, all we ever hear are reassurances that the majority supports the President; therefore it must be all right.

The terrorists’ attacks on us, though never justified, are related to our severely flawed foreign policy of intervention. They also reflect the shortcomings of a bureaucracy that is already big enough to know everything it needs to know about any impending attack but too cumbersome to do anything about it.

Bureaucratic weaknesses within a fragile welfare state provide a prime opportunity for those whom we antagonize through our domination over world affairs and global wealth to take advantage of our vulnerability.

But what has been our answer to the shortcomings of policies driven by manipulated majority opinion by the powerful elite? We have responded by massively increasing the federal government’s policing activity to hold American citizens in check and make sure we are well-behaved and pose no threat, while massively expanding our aggressive presence around the world.

There is no possible way these moves can make us more secure against terrorism, yet they will accelerate our march toward national bankruptcy with a currency collapse.

Relying on authoritarian democracy and domestic and international meddling only move us sharply away from a constitutional republic and the rule of law and toward the turbulence of a decaying democracy, about which Madison and others had warned.

Once the goal of liberty is replaced by a preconceived notion of the benefits and the moral justifications of a democracy, a trend toward internationalism and world government follows.

Can one imagine what it might be like if a true worldwide democracy existed and the United Nations were controlled by a worldwide, one man/one vote philosophy? The masses of China and India could vote themselves whatever they needed from the more prosperous western countries.

How long would a world system last based on this absurdity? Yet this is the principle that we’re working so hard to impose on ourselves and others around the world.

In spite of the great strides made toward one-world government based on egalitarianism, I’m optimistic that this Utopian nightmare will never come to fruition. I have already made the case that here at home powerful special interests take over controlling majority opinion, making sure fairness in distribution is never achieved.

This fact causes resentment and becomes so expensive that the entire system becomes unstable and eventually collapses. Democratic socialism is so destructive to production of wealth that it must fail, just as socialism failed under Soviet Communism.

We have a long way to go before old-fashioned nationalism is dead and buried. In the meantime, the determination of those promoting democratic socialism will cause great harm to many people before its chaotic end and we rediscover the basic principle responsible for all of human progress."

http://www.amazon.com/Foreign-Policy...2861810&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Foreign-Policy-Freedom-Commerce-Friendship/dp/0912453001/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242861810&sr=8-1)

[Epic]

YAF is a conservative organization... don't expect them to side with RP over Stein.

[dannno]

Hope he responds.

[CharlesTX]

YAF is a "conservative" organization... don't expect them to side with RP over Stein.

Fixed for relativity.

[ItsTime]

YAF is a neo-conservative organization... don't expect them to side with RP over Stein.


Fixed for relativity.

There fixed it for you both.