Ron Paul hit piece

[disorderlyvision]

Feel free to leave comments and go on the "offensive"

http://www.examiner.com/x-17370-Vent...ion-our-Heroes

When I wrote my commentary regarding Ron Paul's appearance in the movie Bruno, I had no idea how much animosity I would receive from those who blindly follow the teachings of Ron Paul. The only question I aked was why Paul, of all the 2008 Republican presidential candidates, was chosen to be punked , and then I simply speculated that it might have been due to his ultra-conservative political positions on gays, specifically his anti-gay marriage, anti-gay adoption and pro - military "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy.

For the record, I do not believe Ron Paul is homophobic. I personally met him in Las Vegas at FreedomFest 2008, attended his rally, purchased a t-shirt and contributed to his campaign. I was very excited that a former Libertarian presidential candidate actually might have a chance to spread Libertarian philosophy, even as a Republican. Most of his supporters are unaware that Ron Paul is on the advisory board of the Republican Liberty Caucus, an organization of libertarian minded Republicans. I even went so far as to switch political parties so that I could cast my ballot in our states primary for who I honestly believed was a man who would take libertarian ideas to Washington.

Then, his candidacy came to an end, and I was greatly disappointed when he endorsed the Constitutional Party 2008 Presidential candidate, whose platform on human rights, specifically as they pertain to a women's right to control her own body, and gay rights, is totally opposite that of Libertarian principles. Even though these specific issues are not specifically written in the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution Party platform does not recognize these rights, and anyone who publically endorses that party’s presidential candidate is not a true Libertarian.

I agree that Ron Paul's five minutes of film was embarrassing and uncomfortable, but I still contend his reaction was way out of line under the circumstances. From the start of the "interview" you could read the disgust on his face even before the hotel room scene, which he could have easily avoided long before the confrontation. Yet, my opinion is of very little consequence to those who go on the offensive whenever anyone criticizes their hero.

The real question one needs to ask is; with so many emails and text votes received during the debates, the huge signs, the Blimp and the thousands of people who attended his rallies, why was it that with all of this enthusiasm, he was never able to achieve over 15% of the vote in any of the primaries? In fact, in New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die” state with the highest number of libertarian minded voters, Ron Paul came in a disappointing 5th place.

A true Libertarian most likely will never be elected to a major State or Federal office. There are a number of issues from both sides of the two-party ticket which one can agree or disagree with, but when it comes to basic individual rights, there is no room for compromise.

In this county, we do not blindly follow the leader. It is the duty and the responsibility of every journalist not to be dazzled by the face of the Wizard, but to expose the man behind the curtain, even if it means being subjected to the mass’ cries of “kill the wicked witch” columnist who did.

[muh_roads]

There was no disgust on his face before the bedroom scene. He seemed genuinely happy to be talked to.

[Athan]

Yeah, wtf is this guy on?

[Kludge]

Let's throw snowballs at him.

[Vessol]

I haven't seen the scene, so I can't speak much on that.

However he does have a point.

Before you throw rocks at me, let me make my peace.

We shouldn't blindly follow anyone of any ideology.

I agree with a lot of the things that Dr. Paul says, however there are some things I disagree with.

One of them is abortion, which I am pro-choice for early abortions. As well as full rights to homosexuals. I am also quite as isolationist as him and think that minimalism while nice in practice is impractical in a large society.

Anyone who blindly follows any candidate, even Ron Paul, is destroying what this whole movement is about.

[disorderlyvision]

I don't think anyone is "blindly" following Paul. It seems to me the author wrote a previous article that was negative towards paul, and his supporters defended him. so, now the author is attacking Paul supporters because they didn't agree with the authors assessmnt.

btw, how is Paul anti-homosexual or PRO-military as the article claims?

[acptulsa]

Score one for Bob Barr the spoiler. Gay San Franciscan supports libertarian, libertarian winds up endorsing one candidate (even though he initially didn't intend to) because Barr decided to be an ass, and little bits of blowback continue to erupt. Goofy.

This guy's still an idiot for trying to read all this crap into it just because he feels betrayed.

[Epic]

Wait, this author is a libertarian???

A libertarian who doesn't even know his stances on gays in military (it's ok as long as they don't cause trouble).

"Paul elaborated his position in a 65-minute interview at Google, stating that he would not discharge troops for being homosexual if their behavior was not disruptive.[202]"

She also doesn't know Ron's stance on gay adoption.

"Same-sex adoption
On 1999 House appropriations bill H.R. 2587, for the government of the District of Columbia, Paul voted for four different amendments to prohibit federal funding.[192] Of these, Amendment 356 would have prevented federal money appropriated in the bill (money "for a Federal payment to the District of Columbia to create incentives to promote the adoption of children in the District of Columbia foster care system") from being spent on "the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage," whether same-sex or opposite-sex.[193][194][195][196]"


Frankly, she's a "libertarian examiner" who can't even examine the most well-known libertarian.

[disorderlyvision]

Wait, this author is a libertarian???

I was kinda suprised myself. I have come across some good articles on the Examiner.

[Reason]

Let's throw snowballs at him.

Wait, this author is a libertarian???

A libertarian who doesn't even know his stances on gays in military (it's ok as long as they don't cause trouble).

"Paul elaborated his position in a 65-minute interview at Google, stating that he would not discharge troops for being homosexual if their behavior was not disruptive.[202]"

She also doesn't know Ron's stance on gay adoption.

"Same-sex adoption
On 1999 House appropriations bill H.R. 2587, for the government of the District of Columbia, Paul voted for four different amendments to prohibit federal funding.[192] Of these, Amendment 356 would have prevented federal money appropriated in the bill (money "for a Federal payment to the District of Columbia to create incentives to promote the adoption of children in the District of Columbia foster care system") from being spent on "the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage," whether same-sex or opposite-sex.[193][194][195][196]"


Frankly, she's a "libertarian examiner" who can't even examine the most well-known libertarian.

Let's send them email instead of snowballs.

contactus@examiner.com <contactus@examiner.com>

help@examiner.com <help@examiner.com>

advertise@examiner.com <advertise@examiner.com>

Demand that the author correct the mistakes on RP's positions.

[Reason]

RE: Robin Westmiller Misrepresentations
Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:05 AM
To: "contactus@examiner.com" <contactus@examiner.com>
RE: Robin Westmiller Misrepresentations

http://www.examiner.com/x-17370-Vent...ion-our-Heroes

Robin Westmiller states,
"specifically his anti-gay marriage, anti-gay adoption and pro - military "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy."


Reality Check
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_...vil_Rights.htm

Q: On gay marriage. You’ve been quoted as saying, “Any association that’s voluntary should be permissible in a free society.” And you’ve expressed your opposition to a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

A: If you believe in federalism, it’s better that we allow these things to be left to the state. My personal belief is that marriage is a religious ceremony. And it should be dealt with religiously. The [government] really shouldn’t be involved. The government got involved mostly for health reasons 100 years or so ago. But this should be a religious matter. All voluntary associations, whether they’re economic or social, should be protected by the law. But to amend the Constitution is totally unnecessary to define something that’s already in the dictionary. We do know what marriage is about. We don’t need a new definition or argue over a definition and have an Amendment. To me, it just seems so unnecessary to do that. There’s no need for the federal government to be involved in this.
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate in Orlando, Florida Oct 21, 2007

Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy for gays in army
Q: Most of our closest allies, including Great Britain and Israel, allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military. Is it time to end “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the US military?

A: I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there’s heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality, it’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem
Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007

Rights belong only to individuals, not collective groups
After 200 years, the constitutional protection of the right of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is virtually gone.

Today’s current terminology describing rights reflects this sad change. It is commonplace for politicians and those desiring special privileges to refer to: black rights, Hispanic rights, handicap rights, employee rights, student rights, minority rights, women’s rights, gay rights, children’s rights, student rights, Asian-American rights, Jewish rights, AIDS victims’ rights, poverty rights, homeless rights, etc.

Unless all the terms are dropped & we recognize that only an individual has rights, the solution to the mess in which we find ourselves will not be found. The longer we lack of definition of rights, the worse the economic and social problems will be.
Source: Freedom Under Siege, by Ron Paul, p. 14-15 Dec 31, 1987

Same-sex adoption

On 1999 House appropriations bill H.R. 2587, for the government of the District of Columbia, Paul voted for four different amendments to prohibit federal funding.[192] Of these, Amendment 356 would have prevented federal money appropriated in the bill (money "for a Federal payment to the District of Columbia to create incentives to promote the adoption of children in the District of Columbia foster care system") from being spent on "the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage," whether same-sex or opposite-sex.[193][194][195][196]

[Reason]

Report the misrepresentations to their editors!

[zach]

Let's throw snowballs at him.

Let's chase him.

[Reason]

Here is the authors website,

http://www.ravenwest.net/

Here is the authors youtube account,

http://www.youtube.com/user/robinwestmiller

Here is the authors personal email address,

westmiller@aol.com

Phone Number (Publicly Available)

805-493-4332


Public Information listed for her website,

http://www.networksolutions.com/whoi.../ravenwest.net

[ravedown]

i have no problem with the article and agree with many of the points. also-she has every right to explain her position...what i think sucks is now she will get nasty comments and emails that will probably alienate her from the RP movement and libertarians will get labeled bullies etc. no candidate is perfect and chances are-i think if RP runs again-you get the feeling she would vote for him regardless of her disagreements and thats really what matters. i hope the bully $#@!s lay off but that won't happen.

[Reason]

i have no problem with the article and agree with many of the points. also-she has every right to explain her position...what i think sucks is now she will get nasty comments and emails that will probably alienate her from the RP movement and libertarians will get labeled bullies etc. no candidate is perfect and chances are-i think if RP runs again-you get the feeling she would vote for him regardless of her disagreements and thats really what matters. i hope the bully $#@!s lay off but that won't happen.

No one said anything about being nasty.

All the contact info I listed is to be used in a professional manner in an attempt to correct her clear failure to look at the reasons for why Ron Paul voted the way he did rather than just the headline labels of how he voted.

[ravedown]

maybe i misunderstood - 'going on the "offensive" in the initial post.

and i admit i was wrong in my assumption about the comments to the article-some of the best arguments and intelligent responses i have read yet...bravo.

[RM918]

If you openly assault people based on presumptions and a total lack of research and they get 'turned off' to an idea, you probably don't want those sort of people supporting an idea. If they care so much about getting flamed on the internet instead of thinking for themselves, let them run off to other candidates. I could really care less.

[disorderlyvision]

maybe i misunderstood - 'going on the "offensive" in the initial post.

and i admit i was wrong in my assumption about the comments to the article-some of the best arguments and intelligent responses i have read yet...bravo.

I was just using the author's verbage

[Reason]

Just had a 15 minute phone conversation with the author.

Woke her up apparently lol

Apparently her justifications for this sentence

"specifically his anti-gay marriage, anti-gay adoption and pro - military "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy."

Is not Ron Paul's actual votes/stated position on these issues, instead she is inferring this from Ron Paul's decision to endorse the Constitutional Party which according to her has these types of opinions/positions.

She was very polite and admitted that she does get paid based on how many hits her article gets so writing somewhat controversial articles about Ron Paul are in her interest.

She agreed to edit the article to clarify the sentence in question to show where she is inferring that from.

[BillyDkid]

I haven't seen the scene, so I can't speak much on that.

However he does have a point.

Before you throw rocks at me, let me make my peace.

We shouldn't blindly follow anyone of any ideology.

I agree with a lot of the things that Dr. Paul says, however there are some things I disagree with.

One of them is abortion, which I am pro-choice for early abortions. As well as full rights to homosexuals. I am also quite as isolationist as him and think that minimalism while nice in practice is impractical in a large society.

Anyone who blindly follows any candidate, even Ron Paul, is destroying what this whole movement is about.

Nobody I know is "blindly following" anyone's ideology and, no, he doesn't have a point. The vast majority of us have waited for someone in the national spotlight who represents out views and feelings and our belief in liberty and Dr. Paul, with his campaign, gave that to us. The remainder are people who heard the message of liberty for the first time from Dr. Paul and it resonated with them - they understood it for the first time. This includes former diehard lefties and righties who finally had their ears opened to the truth of things.

[Reason]

Looks like the article has been edited now.

Happy I made that phone call

[free.alive]

Disorderlyvision: May 2009.

You're obviously new here. They guy needs a little traffic. Just ignore it, deaden the link (please), and give it no traffic.

[Reason]

Disorderlyvision: May 2009.

You're obviously new here. They guy needs a little traffic. Just ignore it, deaden the link (please), and give it no traffic.

1. Disorderlyvision has more posts than you do.

2. Now that the article has been edited I can't even say that I can entirely disagree with the authors sentiments.

[disorderlyvision]

Disorderlyvision: May 2009.

You're obviously new here. They guy needs a little traffic. Just ignore it, deaden the link (please), and give it no traffic.

Umm what does my sign up date have to do with anything? Have I offended the keyboard warrior elites

New to this site? somewhat, I was a lurker before a poster. New to the ideas of liberty...NO

Normally I wouldn't even have posted the article. however, I have seen a lot of libertarian leaning posts on the examiner. So felt the circumstances were different than your usual Paul bashing.

[Reason]

RE: Robin Westmiller Misrepresentations
Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:05 AM
To: "contactus@examiner.com" <contactus@examiner.com>
RE: Robin Westmiller Misrepresentations

http://www.examiner.com/x-17370-Vent...ion-our-Heroes

Robin Westmiller states,
"specifically his anti-gay marriage, anti-gay adoption and pro - military "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy."


Reality Check
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_...vil_Rights.htm

Q: On gay marriage. You’ve been quoted as saying, “Any association that’s voluntary should be permissible in a free society.” And you’ve expressed your opposition to a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

A: If you believe in federalism, it’s better that we allow these things to be left to the state. My personal belief is that marriage is a religious ceremony. And it should be dealt with religiously. The [government] really shouldn’t be involved. The government got involved mostly for health reasons 100 years or so ago. But this should be a religious matter. All voluntary associations, whether they’re economic or social, should be protected by the law. But to amend the Constitution is totally unnecessary to define something that’s already in the dictionary. We do know what marriage is about. We don’t need a new definition or argue over a definition and have an Amendment. To me, it just seems so unnecessary to do that. There’s no need for the federal government to be involved in this.
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate in Orlando, Florida Oct 21, 2007

Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy for gays in army
Q: Most of our closest allies, including Great Britain and Israel, allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military. Is it time to end “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the US military?

A: I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there’s heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality, it’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem
Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007

Rights belong only to individuals, not collective groups
After 200 years, the constitutional protection of the right of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is virtually gone.

Today’s current terminology describing rights reflects this sad change. It is commonplace for politicians and those desiring special privileges to refer to: black rights, Hispanic rights, handicap rights, employee rights, student rights, minority rights, women’s rights, gay rights, children’s rights, student rights, Asian-American rights, Jewish rights, AIDS victims’ rights, poverty rights, homeless rights, etc.

Unless all the terms are dropped & we recognize that only an individual has rights, the solution to the mess in which we find ourselves will not be found. The longer we lack of definition of rights, the worse the economic and social problems will be.
Source: Freedom Under Siege, by Ron Paul, p. 14-15 Dec 31, 1987

Same-sex adoption

On 1999 House appropriations bill H.R. 2587, for the government of the District of Columbia, Paul voted for four different amendments to prohibit federal funding.[192] Of these, Amendment 356 would have prevented federal money appropriated in the bill (money "for a Federal payment to the District of Columbia to create incentives to promote the adoption of children in the District of Columbia foster care system") from being spent on "the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage," whether same-sex or opposite-sex.[193][194][195][196]

Just received this email in response to my email. (quoted my email for reference)

Thank you for your comments

And for being civil. I received a phone call this morning and have re-edited the article to clarify some points.

However, since you did take the time to write, I'll go through your points

"There’s no need for the federal government to be involved in this."

Yes, but they are. The issue of whether or not state or federal government should be involved does not not relieve his stand the the fact he would do nothing to change it, even on a state level. In his case, Texas, when he supports the Constitution Party Platform by endorsing their presidential candidate.



A: I think the current policy is a decent policy.

Don't ask, don't tell, DON'T SERVE. This policy is anything BUT decent. "Disruptive behavior" was also the main reason that women were kept out certain military service. "So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality, (OF COURSE IT IS!) it’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.

There is no "problem" other than the policy that he believes is "decent". Again, this is NOT a Libertarian policy, but is very much supported by the C.P.

Rights belong only to individuals, not collective groups
After 200 years, the constitutional protection of the right of the individual to life, liberty, and20the pursuit of happiness is virtually gone.
Today’s current terminology describing rights reflects this sad change. It is commonplace for politicians and those desiring special privileges to refer to: black rights, Hispanic rights, handicap rights, employee rights, student rights, minority rights, women’s rights, gay rights, children’s rights, student rights, Asian-American rights, Jewish rights, AIDS victims’ rights, poverty rights, homeless rights, etc.
Unless all the terms are dropped & we recognize that only an individual has rights, the solution to the mess in which we find ourselves will not be found. The longer we lack of definition of rights, the worse the economic and social problems will be.

Yes, and as a Libertarian, I totally with this, but until there is such a thing as EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW, and we have an end to discrimination, then there will always need to be "protected classes" under the Constitution.

He forgot about the CP's "protected class" of the "unborn"

Same-sex adoption - is specifically stated in the CP platform.


The main part of the article is just to point out that, although Ron Paul was the Libertarian party's presidential candidate, ONCE UPON A TIME, he abandoned a huge part of their platform when it comes to human rights, and perhaps that was one of the reasons he was picked to be in the movie. Still haven't found out how that happened, but I'm working on it.< br>
Again, thanks for the email.

Robin C. Westmiller, JD

[Kludge]

Y'all have forgotten the shining moment of the 2008 presidential campaign...

YouTube - Sean Hannity Chased Down By Angry Republicans

[dannno]

Looks like the article has been edited now.

Happy I made that phone call

Could you call her back and tell her that Ron Paul ALSO endorsed Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr and Ralph Nader??

I mean, how can he infer anything just for endorsing all of the third party candidates who agreed with his 4-point liberty philosophy??


All she did was change it to:

I simply speculated that it might have been due to his ultra-conservative political positions, which are in direct contrast to Libertarian principles.

What ultra conservative political positions?? States rights on abortions?? Give me a frickin break..

[specsaregood]

She was very polite and admitted that she does get paid based on how many hits her article gets so writing somewhat controversial articles about Ron Paul are in her interest.

Hrm, it seems such a payperhit policy would not necessarily encourage good journalism but instead a trolling version of journalism. Will have to keep this in mind if I ever see a link to examiner.com. Any media outlet that encourages such behavior ranks no better than the national enquirer or daily sun or other tabloid mags, in my book.

[Reason]

Could you call her back and tell her that Ron Paul ALSO endorsed Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr and Ralph Nader??

I mean, how can he infer anything just for endorsing all of the third party candidates who agreed with his 4-point liberty philosophy??


All she did was change it to:



What ultra conservative political positions?? States rights on abortions?? Give me a frickin break..

I posted all her contact info in this thread,

Let's just stay polite.