The Strange Case of Ron Paul

By: T-Rav

Ron Paul has suddenly become the darling of a large section of the Republican Party, even after clearly and repeatedly disqualifying himself from serious consideration by anyone not a member of the John Birch Society. In the past couple weeks, popular and long-time conservative pundits such as Ann Coulter have gone on record as saying they will vote for Paul rather than an establishment figure such as Newt Gingrich. Well, I won’t.

I have made my disgust and fury at Mitt Romney, for example, and his RINO-ism very clear on this site, to the point of being obsessive; but I will vote for Romney in a heartbeat rather than cast a ballot for the good doctor.

Paul’s current popularity is the result of some deep dissatisfaction with the field of candidates, which I can understand. And he does have some legit credentials as a small-government fiscal conservative. He wants to keep the government from exceeding a strict interpretation of its Constitutional authority; he wants an end to pork-barrel spending (although this hasn’t kept him from requesting and receiving his fair share of earmark money), etc. The chances of any of these proposals becoming law are about those of a snowball in the nether regions, but they’re nice to think about, and Paul deserves some credit for advancing the debate on fiscal and economic issues.

That being said, when you consider the whole man, Paul is such a disaster I am at something of a loss to comprehend how he became popular at all.

Let’s look at his record. For all the adulation showered on him as the leading voice of fiscal responsibility in Congress and “the godfather of the Tea Party movement” (seriously?), Paul hasn’t really done that much as a legislator. He’s authored/sponsored a number of bills, certainly; but most of them have been of a very simplistic nature, making demands such as “End the Fed!” or “Repeal the income tax!” without outlining a responsible alternative plan for monetary or tax policy. This suggests to me a man who either can’t or won’t think about these issues beyond superficial clichés—or who perhaps has no intention of waging a sustained campaign on their behalf and is therefore just throwing out slogans to get attention. Either way, he has not displayed the comprehensive, long-term thinking that Paul Ryan, Pat Toomey, or even Eric Cantor and others have. In fact, in his two decades, on and off, as a member of Congress, Paul saw only one of his bills be passed and signed into law—a bill authorizing the sale of a Galveston customhouse. Eh, I guess it’s because the establishment was out to get him or something.

But hey, he has done plenty outside of Congress, informing Americans through his newsletters about the dangers of big government and leftist policies, hasn’t he? Well. How about those newsletters?

During the 1980s and ‘90s, Paul published several newsletters, among others The Ron Paul Investment Letter and The Ron Paul Political Report. These would presumably focus on economic stuff, but they repeatedly included some very obscene racism. In June 1991, for example, a story on black violence in the nation’s capital was headlined “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” The following year, one issue described how “blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration {of a basketball game}. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot. . . Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems.” Another newsletter also discussed a “destruction of civilization” that was “the most tragic {to} ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara.” This would be the ending of apartheid in South Africa. Other issues claimed that Martin Luther King Jr. was a pedophile, a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours” and “seduced underage girls and boys,” and expressed support for former Louisiana senatorial candidate and former KKK Imperial Wizard David Duke, who had “scared the blazes out of the Establishment.”

Paul claims he didn’t write these articles, which is plausible as they were unsigned; what is not plausible is the idea that they were written and published without his full knowledge and consent, in a newsletter he profited from and in which he employed members of his own family. His supporters, for their part, are attempting to call this a case of fallacious guilt-by-association, or saying that this was all nearly 20 years ago, so it doesn’t really matter. Fine. But how is this any different from Obama’s longtime association with Jeremiah Wright (I refuse to honor him with the title “Reverend”) and other radical nutjobs? It seemed there was enough of an association then to call Obama a radical; why then, with similar associations here, is it not okay to call Paul a fringe radical with a serious race problem? More to the point, does anyone think for a moment that the same media which swept Obama’s skeletons under the rug would ignore Paul’s if he were to become the nominee?

I suppose it’s possible to argue, as his supporters have done, that this is either a big misunderstanding or an ugly smear campaign. That doesn’t help my evaluation of him, though, because I find those policies of his which are being championed equally dangerous. Simply put, the Congressman is proof of something I keep noticing among self-styled “libertarians”: a tendency to go to extremes with one’s ideology. His foreign policy positions are perhaps the most vivid example of this.

It’s one thing to say that the war in Iraq was a mistake, that the U.S. is too involved in the affairs of other nations, and that we need to get out of Afghanistan. These are positions I don’t entirely agree with, but one can rationally arrive at these positions and make a compelling case for them, and Paul was on more or less safe ground when he brought all this up in the debates. But then he kept going off the deep end. Even early on, he showed a total lack of understanding of the threat Iran poses when he insisted that, to paraphrase, “if we leave Iran alone, they’ll leave us alone.” For much of Bush’s term, this was a position no one to the right of Dennis Kucinich would consider taking. And let’s not forget, he essentially said that the U.S. brought 9/11 on itself. Even if one can agree that radical Islamists were reacting against certain policies of ours, let’s be clear about this—a man who wants to be our Commander-in-Chief is implicitly absolving our enemies of all responsibility for their deeds. Does that remind you of anyone? And that last debate….oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. First there was his claim that Israel’s neighbors posed no threat, and that our military was just looking for an excuse to go to war with Iran. Then Bachmann started pressing him, and he started crying that the U.S. would “declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims.” Um, no.

Worse, it’s getting harder and harder to claim that Paul just got flustered and misspoke, or that his words got twisted around, or whatever his excuse is this week. Not only do we have to consider his recent remarks that Israel is responsible for the formation of Hamas, we must take into account his past positions on foreign policy. According to one former staffer, who worked for Paul on and off for over a decade, the Congressman was personally opposed to any military response to 9/11.

He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.

On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District. Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign.

The staffer adds that in private conversations, Paul would dispute American involvement in World War II, arguing that it was a humanitarian exercise for “saving the Jews,” in which, short of actual German attacks on our soil, the U.S. should not have become involved. One wonders what would have become of the people of Middle Earth had this guy been the king of Rohan or some other Tolkien character.

Is Paul a racist or an anti-Semite, or neither? Ultimately, that’s between him and God, and anyway, it’s beside the point. The point is he has no problem affiliating with those who are. He is demonstrably anti-Israel. He seems to believe that the CIA may very well have been behind 9/11 and that there really are international secret societies trying to control us through our currency. This is Ron Paul’s reality, and this lies at the heart of my problem with him. It’s not that he’s not as socially conservative as I’d prefer (and he’s not), or that he’s not as pro-Israel or as hawkish on foreign policy as I’d prefer (and he’s not). It’s that the world he lives in is so different from ours—even more so, in some ways, than the world Obama lives in—that it renders him incapable of looking after the interests of the United States, especially as he refuses to acknowledge the real threats facing America. Defending the country against threats is apparently less important to him than avoiding a “neocon” policy. Paul’s mind seems closed to the concepts of trade-offs or practicality; he must follow his ideology to its logical outcomes, regardless of the consequences.

Whatever his merits on a few issues, this is a committed conspiracy theorist and a hard-core ideologue determined not to let facts shape his beliefs, but to make his beliefs shape the facts—in other words, the very opposite of a true conservative. He should not be allowed anywhere near the White House, and any further flirtation with him is extremely dangerous.

The Strange Case of Ron Paul

Category : Rep. Ron Paul

By: T-Rav

Ron Paul has suddenly become the darling of a large section of the Republican Party, even after clearly and repeatedly disqualifying himself from serious consideration by anyone not a member of the John Birch Society. In the past couple weeks, popular and long-time conservative pundits such as Ann Coulter have gone on record as saying they will vote for Paul rather than an establishment figure such as Newt Gingrich. Well, I won’t.

I have made my disgust and fury at Mitt Romney, for example, and his RINO-ism very clear on this site, to the point of being obsessive; but I will vote for Romney in a heartbeat rather than cast a ballot for the good doctor.

Paul’s current popularity is the result of some deep dissatisfaction with the field of candidates, which I can understand. And he does have some legit credentials as a small-government fiscal conservative. He wants to keep the government from exceeding a strict interpretation of its Constitutional authority; he wants an end to pork-barrel spending (although this hasn’t kept him from requesting and receiving his fair share of earmark money), etc. The chances of any of these proposals becoming law are about those of a snowball in the nether regions, but they’re nice to think about, and Paul deserves some credit for advancing the debate on fiscal and economic issues.

That being said, when you consider the whole man, Paul is such a disaster I am at something of a loss to comprehend how he became popular at all.

Let’s look at his record. For all the adulation showered on him as the leading voice of fiscal responsibility in Congress and “the godfather of the Tea Party movement” (seriously?), Paul hasn’t really done that much as a legislator. He’s authored/sponsored a number of bills, certainly; but most of them have been of a very simplistic nature, making demands such as “End the Fed!” or “Repeal the income tax!” without outlining a responsible alternative plan for monetary or tax policy. This suggests to me a man who either can’t or won’t think about these issues beyond superficial clichés—or who perhaps has no intention of waging a sustained campaign on their behalf and is therefore just throwing out slogans to get attention. Either way, he has not displayed the comprehensive, long-term thinking that Paul Ryan, Pat Toomey, or even Eric Cantor and others have. In fact, in his two decades, on and off, as a member of Congress, Paul saw only one of his bills be passed and signed into law—a bill authorizing the sale of a Galveston customhouse. Eh, I guess it’s because the establishment was out to get him or something.

But hey, he has done plenty outside of Congress, informing Americans through his newsletters about the dangers of big government and leftist policies, hasn’t he? Well. How about those newsletters?

During the 1980s and ‘90s, Paul published several newsletters, among others The Ron Paul Investment Letter and The Ron Paul Political Report. These would presumably focus on economic stuff, but they repeatedly included some very obscene racism. In June 1991, for example, a story on black violence in the nation’s capital was headlined “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” The following year, one issue described how “blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration {of a basketball game}. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot. . . Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems.” Another newsletter also discussed a “destruction of civilization” that was “the most tragic {to} ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara.” This would be the ending of apartheid in South Africa. Other issues claimed that Martin Luther King Jr. was a pedophile, a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours” and “seduced underage girls and boys,” and expressed support for former Louisiana senatorial candidate and former KKK Imperial Wizard David Duke, who had “scared the blazes out of the Establishment.”

Paul claims he didn’t write these articles, which is plausible as they were unsigned; what is not plausible is the idea that they were written and published without his full knowledge and consent, in a newsletter he profited from and in which he employed members of his own family. His supporters, for their part, are attempting to call this a case of fallacious guilt-by-association, or saying that this was all nearly 20 years ago, so it doesn’t really matter. Fine. But how is this any different from Obama’s longtime association with Jeremiah Wright (I refuse to honor him with the title “Reverend”) and other radical nutjobs? It seemed there was enough of an association then to call Obama a radical; why then, with similar associations here, is it not okay to call Paul a fringe radical with a serious race problem? More to the point, does anyone think for a moment that the same media which swept Obama’s skeletons under the rug would ignore Paul’s if he were to become the nominee?

I suppose it’s possible to argue, as his supporters have done, that this is either a big misunderstanding or an ugly smear campaign. That doesn’t help my evaluation of him, though, because I find those policies of his which are being championed equally dangerous. Simply put, the Congressman is proof of something I keep noticing among self-styled “libertarians”: a tendency to go to extremes with one’s ideology. His foreign policy positions are perhaps the most vivid example of this.

It’s one thing to say that the war in Iraq was a mistake, that the U.S. is too involved in the affairs of other nations, and that we need to get out of Afghanistan. These are positions I don’t entirely agree with, but one can rationally arrive at these positions and make a compelling case for them, and Paul was on more or less safe ground when he brought all this up in the debates. But then he kept going off the deep end. Even early on, he showed a total lack of understanding of the threat Iran poses when he insisted that, to paraphrase, “if we leave Iran alone, they’ll leave us alone.” For much of Bush’s term, this was a position no one to the right of Dennis Kucinich would consider taking. And let’s not forget, he essentially said that the U.S. brought 9/11 on itself. Even if one can agree that radical Islamists were reacting against certain policies of ours, let’s be clear about this—a man who wants to be our Commander-in-Chief is implicitly absolving our enemies of all responsibility for their deeds. Does that remind you of anyone? And that last debate….oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. First there was his claim that Israel’s neighbors posed no threat, and that our military was just looking for an excuse to go to war with Iran. Then Bachmann started pressing him, and he started crying that the U.S. would “declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims.” Um, no.

Worse, it’s getting harder and harder to claim that Paul just got flustered and misspoke, or that his words got twisted around, or whatever his excuse is this week. Not only do we have to consider his recent remarks that Israel is responsible for the formation of Hamas, we must take into account his past positions on foreign policy. According to one former staffer, who worked for Paul on and off for over a decade, the Congressman was personally opposed to any military response to 9/11.

He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.

On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District. Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign.

The staffer adds that in private conversations, Paul would dispute American involvement in World War II, arguing that it was a humanitarian exercise for “saving the Jews,” in which, short of actual German attacks on our soil, the U.S. should not have become involved. One wonders what would have become of the people of Middle Earth had this guy been the king of Rohan or some other Tolkien character.

Is Paul a racist or an anti-Semite, or neither? Ultimately, that’s between him and God, and anyway, it’s beside the point. The point is he has no problem affiliating with those who are. He is demonstrably anti-Israel. He seems to believe that the CIA may very well have been behind 9/11 and that there really are international secret societies trying to control us through our currency. This is Ron Paul’s reality, and this lies at the heart of my problem with him. It’s not that he’s not as socially conservative as I’d prefer (and he’s not), or that he’s not as pro-Israel or as hawkish on foreign policy as I’d prefer (and he’s not). It’s that the world he lives in is so different from ours—even more so, in some ways, than the world Obama lives in—that it renders him incapable of looking after the interests of the United States, especially as he refuses to acknowledge the real threats facing America. Defending the country against threats is apparently less important to him than avoiding a “neocon” policy. Paul’s mind seems closed to the concepts of trade-offs or practicality; he must follow his ideology to its logical outcomes, regardless of the consequences.

Whatever his merits on a few issues, this is a committed conspiracy theorist and a hard-core ideologue determined not to let facts shape his beliefs, but to make his beliefs shape the facts—in other words, the very opposite of a true conservative. He should not be allowed anywhere near the White House, and any further flirtation with him is extremely dangerous.

"This Best Selling Tends to SELL OUT VERY FAST! If this is a MUST HAVE product, be sure to Order Now to avoid disappointment!"

Best Beyblade Ever - Austerity

Best Beyblade Ever Amazon Product, Find and Compare Prices Online.

By: T-Rav

Ron Paul has suddenly become the darling of a large section of the Republican Party, even after clearly and repeatedly disqualifying himself from serious consideration by anyone not a member of the John Birch Society. In the past couple weeks, popular and long-time conservative pundits such as Ann Coulter have gone on record as saying they will vote for Paul rather than an establishment figure such as Newt Gingrich. Well, I won’t.

I have made my disgust and fury at Mitt Romney, for example, and his RINO-ism very clear on this site, to the point of being obsessive; but I will vote for Romney in a heartbeat rather than cast a ballot for the good doctor.

Paul’s current popularity is the result of some deep dissatisfaction with the field of candidates, which I can understand. And he does have some legit credentials as a small-government fiscal conservative. He wants to keep the government from exceeding a strict interpretation of its Constitutional authority; he wants an end to pork-barrel spending (although this hasn’t kept him from requesting and receiving his fair share of earmark money), etc. The chances of any of these proposals becoming law are about those of a snowball in the nether regions, but they’re nice to think about, and Paul deserves some credit for advancing the debate on fiscal and economic issues.

That being said, when you consider the whole man, Paul is such a disaster I am at something of a loss to comprehend how he became popular at all.

Let’s look at his record. For all the adulation showered on him as the leading voice of fiscal responsibility in Congress and “the godfather of the Tea Party movement” (seriously?), Paul hasn’t really done that much as a legislator. He’s authored/sponsored a number of bills, certainly; but most of them have been of a very simplistic nature, making demands such as “End the Fed!” or “Repeal the income tax!” without outlining a responsible alternative plan for monetary or tax policy. This suggests to me a man who either can’t or won’t think about these issues beyond superficial clichés—or who perhaps has no intention of waging a sustained campaign on their behalf and is therefore just throwing out slogans to get attention. Either way, he has not displayed the comprehensive, long-term thinking that Paul Ryan, Pat Toomey, or even Eric Cantor and others have. In fact, in his two decades, on and off, as a member of Congress, Paul saw only one of his bills be passed and signed into law—a bill authorizing the sale of a Galveston customhouse. Eh, I guess it’s because the establishment was out to get him or something.

But hey, he has done plenty outside of Congress, informing Americans through his newsletters about the dangers of big government and leftist policies, hasn’t he? Well. How about those newsletters?

During the 1980s and ‘90s, Paul published several newsletters, among others The Ron Paul Investment Letter and The Ron Paul Political Report. These would presumably focus on economic stuff, but they repeatedly included some very obscene racism. In June 1991, for example, a story on black violence in the nation’s capital was headlined “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” The following year, one issue described how “blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration {of a basketball game}. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot. . . Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems.” Another newsletter also discussed a “destruction of civilization” that was “the most tragic {to} ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara.” This would be the ending of apartheid in South Africa. Other issues claimed that Martin Luther King Jr. was a pedophile, a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours” and “seduced underage girls and boys,” and expressed support for former Louisiana senatorial candidate and former KKK Imperial Wizard David Duke, who had “scared the blazes out of the Establishment.”

Paul claims he didn’t write these articles, which is plausible as they were unsigned; what is not plausible is the idea that they were written and published without his full knowledge and consent, in a newsletter he profited from and in which he employed members of his own family. His supporters, for their part, are attempting to call this a case of fallacious guilt-by-association, or saying that this was all nearly 20 years ago, so it doesn’t really matter. Fine. But how is this any different from Obama’s longtime association with Jeremiah Wright (I refuse to honor him with the title “Reverend”) and other radical nutjobs? It seemed there was enough of an association then to call Obama a radical; why then, with similar associations here, is it not okay to call Paul a fringe radical with a serious race problem? More to the point, does anyone think for a moment that the same media which swept Obama’s skeletons under the rug would ignore Paul’s if he were to become the nominee?

I suppose it’s possible to argue, as his supporters have done, that this is either a big misunderstanding or an ugly smear campaign. That doesn’t help my evaluation of him, though, because I find those policies of his which are being championed equally dangerous. Simply put, the Congressman is proof of something I keep noticing among self-styled “libertarians”: a tendency to go to extremes with one’s ideology. His foreign policy positions are perhaps the most vivid example of this.

It’s one thing to say that the war in Iraq was a mistake, that the U.S. is too involved in the affairs of other nations, and that we need to get out of Afghanistan. These are positions I don’t entirely agree with, but one can rationally arrive at these positions and make a compelling case for them, and Paul was on more or less safe ground when he brought all this up in the debates. But then he kept going off the deep end. Even early on, he showed a total lack of understanding of the threat Iran poses when he insisted that, to paraphrase, “if we leave Iran alone, they’ll leave us alone.” For much of Bush’s term, this was a position no one to the right of Dennis Kucinich would consider taking. And let’s not forget, he essentially said that the U.S. brought 9/11 on itself. Even if one can agree that radical Islamists were reacting against certain policies of ours, let’s be clear about this—a man who wants to be our Commander-in-Chief is implicitly absolving our enemies of all responsibility for their deeds. Does that remind you of anyone? And that last debate….oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. First there was his claim that Israel’s neighbors posed no threat, and that our military was just looking for an excuse to go to war with Iran. Then Bachmann started pressing him, and he started crying that the U.S. would “declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims.” Um, no.

Worse, it’s getting harder and harder to claim that Paul just got flustered and misspoke, or that his words got twisted around, or whatever his excuse is this week. Not only do we have to consider his recent remarks that Israel is responsible for the formation of Hamas, we must take into account his past positions on foreign policy. According to one former staffer, who worked for Paul on and off for over a decade, the Congressman was personally opposed to any military response to 9/11.

He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.

On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District. Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign.

The staffer adds that in private conversations, Paul would dispute American involvement in World War II, arguing that it was a humanitarian exercise for “saving the Jews,” in which, short of actual German attacks on our soil, the U.S. should not have become involved. One wonders what would have become of the people of Middle Earth had this guy been the king of Rohan or some other Tolkien character.

Is Paul a racist or an anti-Semite, or neither? Ultimately, that’s between him and God, and anyway, it’s beside the point. The point is he has no problem affiliating with those who are. He is demonstrably anti-Israel. He seems to believe that the CIA may very well have been behind 9/11 and that there really are international secret societies trying to control us through our currency. This is Ron Paul’s reality, and this lies at the heart of my problem with him. It’s not that he’s not as socially conservative as I’d prefer (and he’s not), or that he’s not as pro-Israel or as hawkish on foreign policy as I’d prefer (and he’s not). It’s that the world he lives in is so different from ours—even more so, in some ways, than the world Obama lives in—that it renders him incapable of looking after the interests of the United States, especially as he refuses to acknowledge the real threats facing America. Defending the country against threats is apparently less important to him than avoiding a “neocon” policy. Paul’s mind seems closed to the concepts of trade-offs or practicality; he must follow his ideology to its logical outcomes, regardless of the consequences.

Whatever his merits on a few issues, this is a committed conspiracy theorist and a hard-core ideologue determined not to let facts shape his beliefs, but to make his beliefs shape the facts—in other words, the very opposite of a true conservative. He should not be allowed anywhere near the White House, and any further flirtation with him is extremely dangerous.

Product Title : The Strange Case of Ron Paul

The Strange Case of Ron Paul,

Rep. Ron Paul,

The Strange Case of Ron Paul