…comes from Glenn Greenwald. I’ve always admired Greenwald; however, I found myself cheering in agreement as I read his latest article, “Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies”. He suggests that voters will have to decide for themselves on the lesser of evils (as usual). In doing so Greenwald pushes to the surface the numerous actions Obama has taken that goes directly against what self-righteous progressives are all about. It’s long, but read it. It is truth. Yes, even the part about the newsletters. Here is an excerpt:
The thing I loathe most about election season is reflected in the central fallacy that drives progressive discussion the minute “Ron Paul” is mentioned. As soon as his candidacy is discussed, progressives will reflexively point to a slew of positions he holds that are anathema to liberalism and odious in their own right and then say: how can you support someone who holds this awful, destructive position? The premise here — the game that’s being played — is that if you can identify some heinous views that a certain candidate holds, then it means they are beyond the pale, that no Decent Person should even consider praising any part of their candidacy.
The fallacy in this reasoning is glaring. The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations withdrones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has wagedan unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient.
He has entrenched for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret privilege as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law. He has shielded Bush era criminals from every last form of accountability. He has vigorously prosecuted the cruel and supremely racist War on Drugs, including those parts he vowed during the campaign to relinquish — a war which devastates minority communities and encages and converts into felons huge numbers of minority youth for no good reason. He has empowered thieving bankers through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy, efforts to shield mortgage defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an endless roster of former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists. He’s brought the nation to a full-on Cold War and a covert hot war with Iran, on the brink of far greater hostilities. He has made the U.S. as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government. His support for some of the Arab world’s most repressive regimes is as strong as ever.
Last night Ron Paul appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. As a big Ron Paul supporter it was surreal. Leno kept him on for 3 interview segments. Almost every single thing Ron Paul said was met with loud cheers. Comedian/Fear Factor Host/Podcaster Joe Rogan was Leno’s next guest. He came out wearing a Ron Paul shirt. Leno asked Joe, “What part of his [Ron Paul's] platform do you like?” Rogan replied, “Every single thing that comes out of his mouth. I go yeah, YEAH, FINALLY!”
This was not just an appearance on a late night talk show. This was a Ron Paul campaign rally.
During the final interview segment with Paul, Leno asked him his thoughts on the other candidates and went down the list by name. When he got to Bachmann, Ron Paul replied, “She doesn’t like Muslims. She hates Muslims. She wants to go get them.” This probably didn’t win him any neo-conservative supporters. Then he doubled down on this when he replied similarly about Santorum saying he doesn’t like “gay people and Muslims.” Wow. I can’t imagine that Santorum and Bachmann won’t issue a counter-attack soon.
This just further cements my point in previous articles. Ron Paul can and would beat Obama in the general election. His more difficult win is in the GOP primary.
During the appearance Twitter was about 99% positive about Ron Paul, including many tweets saying things like, “I wasn’t sure before, but now I’m definitely voting for Ron Paul.”
Now we can sit back and monitor how the pundits and other candidates react, if they react at all.
Ron Paul is on fire. That is my opinion of his performance in this first GOP debate. Of course, I’m biased. Feel free to make your own judgement after watching the entire debate below. There were a few stellar moments from Ron Paul, including his answer when asked about legalizing drugs, and his answer about being the “Founding Father” of the Tea Party movement regarding Michele Bachmann.
I don’t agree with a lot of what Herman Cain says, but I have to admit he has charisma that will give him a lot of support. Expect the other candidates to start attacking him if his poll numbers go up. I think they will.
Gary Johnson did very well with a few odd moments. If I’m looking at him through social-con or neo-con eyes voting for him would likely be impossible. He did come off as a very honest “make the hard choices” candidate. Sort of like Cain without the charisma.
Pawlenty seems to be channeling John McCain a bit too much and Santorum just comes off as angry. Both seem to be going after the George W. Bush voting block; however small that is these days.
First, some background. Proposition 19 in the State of California would “allow Californians age 21 and older to grow up to 25 square feet of marijuana and possess up to an ounce. It also allows cities and counties to authorize cultivation and sales, and to tax them.”
“Let me state clearly that the Department of Justice strongly opposes Proposition 19. If passed, this legislation will greatly complicate federal drug enforcement efforts to the detriment of our citizens.”
So does this mean that Obama’s justice department will begin enforcing federal drug laws once again in California? Yes, it appears it does.
This goes right back to the nullification debate. Do states have the right to nullify unconstitutional federal laws? Given this news it appears that Obama’s justice department’s Constitution goes right from Amendment 9 to Amendment 11.
It appears that a certain California Sheriff has a similar version of the Constitution:
Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, who is a co-chairman of the main opposition committee, released the letter at a news conference at his headquarters Friday, flanked by two former DEA heads, the district attorney and the Los Angeles city attorney.
“He is saying it is an unenforceable law and the federal government will not allow California to become a rogue state on this issue,” Baca said. “You can’t make a law in contradiction to federal law as a state. Therefore Proposition 19 is null and void and dead on arrival.”
Wow. Baca’s ignorance would be astounding if it wasn’t for Obama through Holder saying basically the same thing. This directly contradicts our Founders. Obama is King and anyone who disagrees with him are peasants or worse, racists. I suppose we can thank Abraham Lincoln for this.
The America we live in is one where the National Government can nullify state laws and “F%*@ the Founders” sing the Statists.
This scheme of legalized theft actually fosters additional corruption, as demonstrated in the sample letter below. Please use the new evidence we provide to send Congress another letter arguing that . . .
Civil asset forfeiture laws should be made illegal.
Quote of the Day: The Constitution was based upon the fact the federal government had exceedingly limited powers. It was only allowed to do eighteen very limited things — the enumerated powers, period. And everything else belonged to the states and the individuals to regulate. – Peter McWilliams
A personal message from Jim Babka . . .
Best-selling author Peter McWilliams died ten years ago today, June 14, 2000.
I remember when I heard the news. I can still feel the sickness and anger that I felt that day.
I didn’t know Peter personally, but I admired him. Some of my colleagues were good friends or acquaintances of his. [Read his story further down below].
Peter was an eloquent champion of limited government and personal freedom. But his life was cut short by the War on Drugs. The federal government denied him the medication he needed to live and thrive.
We need the government to regulate business people, otherwise they will run wild, laying waste to the environment, and selling us bad food, bad drugs, and harmful products.
It would be silly to claim that business people never do these things. After all . . .
* Not all people are good.
* Neither are people who are mostly good, consistently good.
* And sometimes goodness has nothing to do with it — sometimes people simply make mistakes, out of ignorance or carelessness.
But politicians and bureaucrats are people too, and subject to these same failings. Do we really solve the problem of human imperfection by giving one small group of imperfect people vast power over all the others?
That last sentence is so important that it bears constant repeating:
Do we really solve the problem of human imperfection by giving one small group of imperfect people vast power over all the others?
To this we might add, “Is there any form of human being more imperfect than the politician?”
To give this question its proper weight, do not think only about politicians you love (if there are any). Do not cherry-pick the evidence. Instead, think also of the politicians you hate. Should such people have great power over other people?
News item after news item underscores the futility of the War on Drugs. Yet Congress and the President want to continue the same failed policies, no matter how many innocent people are caught in the crossfire.
The War on Poverty… the War on Drugs… the War on Terror… now we have the government’s “War” on Main Street. How to improve the economy and why the government is taking the exact opposite actions to destroy Main Street as a bad case of the “Seen and the Unseen” strikes the Lehigh Valley
This talk was originally delivered to Campaign of Liberty chapter on December 3, 2009. Video will be available shortly.
Today President Obama will tour Allentown, Pennsylvania, in my home congressional district as part of a “Main Street Tour” to show his concern for economic plight of the masses. Many of the people I have spoken with while campaigning innately realize that government is at fault – or at least complain a lot about how the government should “fix” the economy. Unfortunately, many do not have enough of a grasp of economics to understand exactly how the government is ruining their lives and their childrens’ lives. Speaking for myself, about 2 years ago I would have been included in this category. This is no surprise as most of the press and educational system has been hijacked by the disciples of Lord Keynes (the Keynesians) and the socialist Karl Marx for the past century.
The late economist from the Austrian school and NY Times columnist Henry Hazlitt wrote a series of easy-to-understand economic lessons in the 1940s in what was later published as Economics in One Lesson. Hazlitt warned of the dangers of what he termed the “seen and the unseen.” Let me give a rather harsh but true example.
Last week one local paper published a story about a local hardware store on Main Street in Nazareth going out of business. I grew up in Nazareth, and this store was there my whole life. The owners were not able to afford the rent, tried moving down the street for cheaper rent, but were not able to save the company.
Immediately after Barack Obama won the election last November I published an article revealing my own rather cursory investigation of former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. I wanted to know more about him because I thought he had the potential to be a viable liberty-loving Presidential candidate in 2012. While I did discover some potential chinks in his armor, I concluded with the following:
It would be very difficult for me to not support Johnson if he were to run for President in 2012. As of right now, In my view he is the best positioned candidate to carry forward the message of liberty within the Republican Party. He may not be perfect on specific issues here or there, but Ron Paulians would be hard pressed to find another Republican candidate with his record and political viability. He served as a Governor for eight years. He didn’t raise taxes as Governor once. He promoted private business and free markets over government corporatism and regulation. Finally, and perhaps most pertinent, he enthusiastically endorsed Ron Paul for President.
There has been very minimal evidence for a Johnson 2012 bid until now. Jason Pye at UnitedLiberty.org reports that Johnson has formed a PAC and is set to release a book in December entitled “Seven Principles For Good Government”.
A few web sites have been set up by supporters in an effort to coax Johnson into running for President such as JohnsonForAmerica.com.
With this latest news it appears that Johnson is warming up to jump in the fray. I can see it now at the first GOP primary debate sometime in 2011:
Fox News Debate Moderator: Governor Johnson, you’ve been an outspoken critic of the drug war and support the decriminalization of marijuana. These positions don’t seem like Republican positions. This raises questions about your electability. Do you have any sir?
Gary Johnson: Who am I, Ron Paul?
Let us hope so, but this time, let us hope he wins.