Editor’s Note: Sometimes it’s good to listen to the other side with an open mind because perhaps they know better. This article about Ron Paul was sent to us by our neo-conservative friend, Richard Deekbag, founder of the following website (we apologize for the length of the URL):
I mean just look at the guy. Ron Paul is all skinny, old, and wrinkly. His speeches are rambling diatribes supporting the long debunked conspiracy theory known as the U.S. Constitution. Everyone knows the Constitution expired more than 100 years ago and has no place in our Conservative-Progressive-Democratic-Socialist-Liberal-Republican (ConProDemSocLibRep) society.
After all it was Ru Paul’s isolationist ideas that lead America into its darkest period following the Revolutionary War after his idiotic idols, the Founding Fathers, defeated the British occupiers. Well, they were more like friendly visitors than occupiers. Visitors that honored the American colonies by taxing them heavily and treating them like peasants.
Everyone knows by now that Ron Paul’s efforts to abolish the massively successful Federal Reserve bank is kookier than cookies. The Fed has been our savior over and over and over and over and over again over the years. If it weren’t for the Fed the so-called “Great Depression” would have been much shorter. That’s a gigantic problem because we needed it to last much longer just to prove that government regulation is the lifeblood of the economy!
When future generations look back on Ron Paul, and I believe they will, he will be seen as a wise sage, not an iconoclast nor a wing nut. Ron Paul is today’s “Round-earther”, perhaps more technically, a “Spherical-earther”, but that doesn’t roll off the tongue as well. Long ago, the prevailing wisdom was that the earth was flat or at least non-spherical. Those who dared suggest the earth was spherical were considered extreme or fringe and dismissed as “crazy”.
This dismissal by the establishment didn’t make the earth flat. Likewise, just because many of today’s establishment politicians and pundits consider Ron Paul “crazy” doesn’t make him wrong. Yet this seems to be the prevailing argument against him. In other words, yeah I get it, his name is similar to Ru Paul, but what about his ideas?
Ron Paul challenges your indoctrination. He makes the flow of your synapses hurt. He makes you uncomfortable and that is no excuse to dub him “crazy” or “kooky”.
In an excellent piece, Paul Mulshine explores this theme.
The winner of that poll [CPAC] is often considered the consensus leader in the race for the next GOP presidential nomination. When Mitt Romney won it last time around, he was seen as something of a sure thing in an otherwise weak field.
Well the 2012 field is even weaker than last time around. But across the spectrum, the pundits agree that the Texas congressman has no business being in it. Newsweek proclaimed Paul “probably won’t run again for president in 2012 and almost certainly wouldn’t win the Republican nomination if he did.” The Fox News crowd repeated the “Paul is dead” mantra as if the congressman were a Beatle. As for Glenn Beck, who spoke at CPAC, he termed the winner of 31 percent of the audience’s votes “a crazy, kooky guy.”
Quite an achievement for a man who may be the single most unexciting speaker in American politics today. I mean that as high praise. The U.S. Constitution is a dry, unemotional document. And Paul, as its leading proponent in Congress, is a dry, unemotional guy.
So why do his opponents get worked up into such a fervor?
I’ve been mystified by that since early in 2007, when I first interviewed him. Even though Paul had announced for the Republican nomination for president, I didn’t have to go through a press secretary to contact him. I just asked around and got his home number. We had a pleasant chat about the Constitution.
In case you missed it, Ron Paul had some time for his favorite pastime today, questioning the Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke. Then later he enjoyed a relaxing speech on the House floor where he took the obviously crazy position that the U.S. government shouldn’t be assassinating Americans.
First, his opening speech and questioning of Bernanke.
And then, Paul’s floor speech against American assassinations.
Instead of letting these unneeded provisions lapse, Congress will likely extend them, perhaps 30 days, or maybe to the end of 2010. BUT THIS COULD HAPPEN AS SOON AS TODAY.
Worse, Congressional leaders will probably insert this extension in unrelated legislation. This is cowardly. This issue deserves an up-or-down vote on its own merits (or lack thereof).
Ron Paul appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe this morning for nice long segment. The hosts, for the most part, heaped praise on Paul for his CPAC straw poll victory, energizing young people, and his steadfast fidelity to the free market and limited government.
I’ve seen many people incredulous that Ron Paul could somehow win the CPAC 2010 straw poll. I’ve seen it on Twitter, emails, blogs, and comments on blogs. I’ve read that people call him “crazy” or “liberal”. I even witnessed someone say they would vote for Hitler if he was running against Ron Paul. Yeah, and Ron Paul is the crazy one.
So if you believe Ron Paul is crazy on foreign policy I ask you to watch the following videos and learn why it’s quite possible Ron Paul is actually the sane and constitutional one on foreign policy.
If you don’t have 90 minutes to spare to watch both videos in their entirety then go to 16:55 of the 2nd video and just watch Jacob Hornberger’s speech. If you do have 90 minutes then please watch both parts in their entirety. This video is from last Saturday afternoon at CPAC 2010 from a panel discussion called, “Why Real Conservatives Are Against the War on Terrorism”.
The panel is made up of:
Philip Giraldi, former CIA officer.
Karen Kwiatkowski, retired U.S Air Force, Lieutenant Colonel whose assignments included duties as a Pentagon desk officer and a variety of roles for the National Security Agency.
Bruce Fein, associate deputy attorney general from 1981 to 1982 under President Ronald Reagan.
* Why the right to anonymity is important
* The controversial nature of the case about which we want to file a brief
* What the brief will cost and how much time we have
Your right to be anonymous
You already exercise your right to anonymity when you vote. Without the secret ballot you would be vulnerable to various forms of intimidation. Other forms of anonymous expression used to be protected. For instance . . .
America’s Founder’s published anonymously
The country you know and love probably wouldn’t exist without anonymous expression. Many of the most influential writings of the Founding era were published anonymously . . .
. . . including the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers.
The men who debated the Constitution wanted to be able to speak their minds, without fear of retribution. So . . .
If anonymous expression was important for the creation of the United States, isn’t it important for you too?
For instance, should you be able to . . .
* Distribute anonymous pamphlets
* Make anonymous contributions to candidates
* Broadcast anonymous advertisements
This kind of anonymity was crucial to the civil rights movement
In the past, the identity of those who contributed to the work of civil rights movement was legally protected, in order to shield them from retribution, intimidation, and violence.
It’s doubtful the civil rights movement could have obtained the funding it needed without the legal right for people to both make and receive anonymous donations.
But YOU don’t have this right today. You cannot . . .
Day 2 is finished at CPAC 2010 and what an interesting day it was. Here’s a recap. It’s rather long.
We made our way to a panel discussion called “Saving Freedom: Defending the Constitution”. The panelists included Steve Bierfeldt of the Campaign For Liberty. Bierfeldt was the man who was detained by the TSA for carrying a “suspicious” amount of cash. He fought the TSA and they modified their policy. The discussion from all the panelists were interesting and educational.
Liberty Maven
