Liberty Maven

Newsweek’s Joe Miller has published a “web exclusive” article on Ron Paul denouncing him on three points:

1. Ron Paul supports the “conspiracy theory” of the NAFTA Super Highway and the creation of a North American Union.
2. Ron Paul has stated that America could save $1 trillion by cutting foreign spending.
3. Ron Paul has flip flopped on the support of Ronald Reagan.

I’ll ignore the merits of allowing these types of inconsistencies to sway your vote one way or another for now. Instead let’s investigate them one by one.

On the NAFTA Superhighway and the NAU, Miller accuses Paul of believing in conspiracy theories that are far from truth. His argument can be summed up thusly, “Ron Paul is wrong on the NAU and NAFTA Superhighway because the organizations that are advocating and funding these projects told me they don’t exist.” This is “hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil” journalism.

On this argument Miller amounts to nothing more than a tool for the organizations supporting these projects. If he had cited some opposing evidence such as that contained in the several articles by Jerome Corsi at WorldNetDaily, then maybe we could accept his piece as fair. Instead he continues to fan a flame that his own rag had instigated last year in another hit piece on Ron Paul entitled “Ron Paul: Highway To Hell“. The best argument for Ron Paul’s view, including all the evidence one needs to discredit the tool on his argument is contained in an article by Corsi in response to this first hit piece by Newsweek.  Time for the tool to go back into hiding in his small minded toolbox.

On Miller’s second point that Ron Paul is wrong on being able to save $1 trillion by cutting foreign spending, he is simply splitting fine hairs. Do the other candidates get such scrutiny from Newsweek? I can split hairs too. Watch. Ron Paul did not specifically say the $1 trillion could be saved “each year” as Miller’s article suggests. Miller assumes that is what Ron Paul meant when giving his answer during the January 30th debate. Once again Miller is twisting the facts like a screwdriver looking for a screw.

Perhaps Ron Paul did mean “each year”. The truth is the actual figures don’t matter much in the debate where candidates are given 30 seconds to answer. Ron Paul’s overall point is what matters. And his point is that we could save a whole shed-load of money if we discontinue our interventionist foreign policy. I would hope that Newsweek would give Ron Paul the same leeway awarded to the other candidates. Miller proves I should have no such hope.

The third point that Ron Paul has flip-flopped about his support of Ronald Reagan is an act of spitting into the wind by Miller. Ron Paul supported the Reagan of 1976 and 1980 because Reagan was saying all of those wonderful conservative things like limiting the government, reducing taxes, and cutting spending. Things that Ron Paul has never wavered on. Reagan, after taking office did not quite live up to the claims he campaigned upon. During that time Paul was rightly critical of Reagan.

Reagan isn’t a flag of one color. Paul disagreed with Reagan on issues, but agreed wholeheartedly on others. There was room for disagreement. Does that disagreement not give Ron Paul the right to praise and honor Reagan for his ideas that are in line with Paul’s thinking?

Right or wrong Reagan is thought of as a conservative giant who advocated small government, low taxes, and less spending. These are the foundations of Ron Paul’s platform today. While Reagan certainly cut taxes, he was AWOL on cutting spending, racking up a deficit highest in our history on that side of GWB. There is certainly room for criticism as well as praise here.

McCain readily claims he is a straight talker. Ron Paul doesn’t preach it he just practices it. One should not fault him for emphasizing the good in Reagan and understating the bad during his campaign. Although if asked, he doesn’t hesitate to point out Reagan’s (or other Presidents) shortcomings, even today.

So, Joe Miller, I humbly request you to keep on digging, because you have failed miserably here in Ron Paul’s backyard. It is futile to dig here. You will only hit rock solid ground. Take your shovel and jump the fence to the other candidates’ yards.

There, you will certainly find muddy soft ground. Good luck.