What is it about Ron Paul that inspires such extremes? Such maddening support on the one hand, and such fear and loathing on the other? I can give the answer in one word: Soul.

The essential soul of a human being is by definition free. The idea that men are free as determined by God is a concept that is foreign to most men. This is because most men want to control others, to take away their freedom. This is usually referred to as the drive for power. The drive for power is antithetical to freedom because power means the ability to control others. There is only one legitimate thing that power can and should be used for, whether it be military, legislative, or executive power. That is, to legalize freedom.

Ron Paul doesn’t want to be President to “give” me freedom. He doesn’t own my freedom and he didn’t give it to me. The only reason Ron Paul wants to be President is to stop punishing people for using their freedom that is rightfully theirs. He wants no power. This is clear to anyone who listens to him speak.

Read it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK8Y2nO_8TM

Compare that interview with the rather hard-hitting tough journalistic interview Judge Andrew Napolitano did last night with The other Donald:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-cqq-WxhRM

And here is the Judge after the interview, saying that Rumsfeld described the interview as the “toughest” he’s had. I’m thinking he wishes he’d rather be asked if he’s a lizard by Louis CK than be interviewed by the Judge again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpYe0MgEsI0

Letterman, basically said what Rand was saying didn’t sound right, but he didn’t know why. Hillary’s response to the elder Paul was more or less “sometimes we get it right and sometimes we don’t”. That is another non-answer, but that’s why they are called politicians I suppose. Check out the exchange below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oqKdjwwmXM

Here is his GMA appearance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQFV9nN91Oc

Here is his interview with Hannity on the radio:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i0LbuS5KkM

Go, Rand, go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmg_mbVTaLI

It doesn’t necessarily mean that Ron Paul will be the GOP nominee in 2012. Paul hasn’t even announced if he’s running yet. The victory’s meaning really has little to do with 2012 and much to do with the future direction of the Republican Party.

The organizers of CPAC sheepishly denounced their own straw poll prior to announcing Ron Paul as the winner. Appropriately enough, while they denounced the presidential preference question they gushed when talking about the results to the other questions in the poll. Yet the same people that voted for Ron Paul answered those other questions as well. Why did they not suggest that those results were skewed?

Yes, Ron Paul’s Campaign For Liberty and Young Americans for Liberty made it easier for supporters to attend CPAC by offering discounted tickets and lodging packages. They did not “bus them in” as some suggested. The reason so many showed up at CPAC for Ron Paul is because they are true political activists. They are active, vocal, and dedicated to spreading the liberty message to those who are and aren’t willing to listen.  This is something the GOP has been missing for a long time.

It is mainly foreign policy differences that keep the old guard GOP from embracing these young Ron Paul activists. Perhaps if the rest of the Republican Party could ever understand the fundamental differences between…

1. preemptive war and national defense
2. isolationist and non-interventionist
3. anti-semitism and ending all foreign aid
4. blaming America and blaming American policy

…they could welcome Ron Paul and his supporters. The CPAC straw poll result suggests an effort should be made to understand and perhaps embrace these differences. After all, isn’t the ultimate Republican goal to defeat Obama in 2012? Seeing eye to eye with Ron Paul and his numerous activist supporters could go a long way toward that goal.

I have little hope this will happen, but in the long run it may not matter. Many of those young Ron Paul supporters are growing up, feeding on liberty, and will become office-seekers in the future.

The result of the CPAC straw poll does have meaning. It suggests the future is burning bright with the fire of liberty.

During Trump’s speech there were some vocal activists shouting out Ron Paul’s name, among other things. At one point when Trump mentioned there were no good GOP candidates the shouts of Ron Paul became too much for him. The video below shows what happened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_-0hMID67A

Yes, the out-of-touch celebrity with lots of money reacts by telling the crowd that Ron Paul has zero chance of winning. I immediately said something that was later echoed by Rand Paul, “Trump has an even less of a chance of winning than Ron Paul”. That was only the beginning.

Next, Rand Paul delivered his excellent speech highlighted by the following quote, “If you refuse to acknowledge that there’s any waste in the military budget, you are a big government conservative.” Watch Rand Paul’s entire speech here.

Immediately following Rand Paul’s speech, it was time for the presentation of the Defender of the Constitution award to none other than Donald Rumsfeld. Giving Rummy this award is the equivalent of giving Ron Paul the Warmonger of the Year award. It truly boggles the mind. This was, naturally, not lost on the Ron Paul faithful still in the ballroom. Some loud boos were heard. Some shouts of “war monger” were heard. And a great number of people just stood up and walked silently out of the room in protest.

My initial take on this is that it’s OK to boo and shout from the point of introduction up to the point where the speech begins. Then the respectful thing to do would be to be silent or walk out silently. The minute you interfere with their speech you are being a thief of free speech and that’s not very libertarian is it?

However, this is Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld we are talking about. Do they deserve respect? Perhaps if they respected human liberty and actually defended the Constitution those boos today would have been cheers instead.

After dinner we attended the Liberty Forum with Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Jack Hunter, and Thomas Woods. It was a laid-back affair and enjoyable but was without the fiery speeches that marked last year’s Liberty Forum at CPAC when Judge Andrew Napolitano brought the house down with his great speech. I for one missed the Judge tonight.

Day 1 of CPAC was quite eventful. I’m sure tomorrow will bring more interesting moments. Ron Paul speaks in the main ballroom tomorrow afternoon and the cerebral strategists and the balls-to-the-wall activists will be there to applaud, cheer, or jeer. No matter what the media writes or other conservatives say, the goal will always be to promote liberty in the best way they as individuals see fit. And no matter the results, at least they are out here doing something for the cause of freedom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwnDdEm3xRg

Let’s dig a little deeper and attempt to un-attack Ron Paul. Here is my collection.

The “guilt by association” attack:

This is probably the most commonly-used attack on Ron Paul. Paul was criticized for “accepting” a $500 donation during his campaign from a white supremacist.  Of course, the Paul campaign didn’t find out about the donor until it came to light after the donation was made. He refused to return the donation. Instead he argued that it would be better to spend the money wisely in the name of freedom for all rather than returning $500 to a known white supremacist. Some see this as a cop-out. It could also be argued that it was Paul upholding freedom of speech found in the First Amendment. Yes, unfortunately for some, the First Amendment does protect all speech, not just agreeable speech.

People choose to support any given candidate for all kinds of odd reasons. It’s quite common for people to vote for the most likable candidate regardless of the candidate’s political views. I can’t fathom this reasoning (or lack thereof). There are probably some really “scum of the earth” type of people who voted for and supported Barack Obama and John McCain. The reality is that candidates cannot choose their supporters; therefore, they should not be condemned through them.

The “blame America” attack:

This attack on Ron Paul is quite common among neo-conservatives. Their misguided logic goes like this: Ron Paul claims that our government’s foreign policy of the last 50 (or so) years has bred hatred of America in the Middle East. This means Ron Paul blames “America” for atrocities like the 9/11 attacks.

To make this argument one must equate the U.S. government with the American people. When one uses the word “America” it encompasses the government and the citizens. Ron Paul blames U.S foreign policy, not the citizens. United States foreign policy does not equal “America”; therefore, Ron Paul does not blame “America” for anything.

In fact, it could easily be said that Ron Paul is celebrating “America”. He is demonstrating through his words and actions America’s founding principles: distrust and criticism of an over-reaching government.

Arguing that Ron Paul “blames America” is the equivalent of arguing that Thomas Jefferson was a traitor for authoring the Declaration of Independence.

The “isolationist” attack:

This one is so common and yet so misunderstood that it makes my eyes bleed every time I read it or hear it. Luckily it is easy to understand why it isn’t true.

To be an isolationist one must hold two beliefs with respect to foreign policy and trade. First, one must adhere to a non-interventionist foreign policy. This is the foreign policy of our Founders and Ron Paul certainly is “guilty” on this one. Second, one must be a protectionist on trade. Protectionism is the antithesis of “free trade”. Ron Paul is a free trader, not a protectionist; therefore, Ron Paul is not an isolationist.

He is, however, a staunch non-interventionist, like our Founding Fathers.

The “racist” attack:

This attack refers to some questionable writing within Ron Paul’s newsletter released in the early 90′s (for the most part). It’s impossible to know what is in someone’s heart, but Paul tends to wear his heart on his sleeve. To call someone a racist who lists Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks as heroes seems to say more about the accuser than the accused. He has denied writing the words in those newsletters. Add that to the fact that Paul continuously condemns racism and no other racist remarks attributed to Paul have come to light during his nearly 40 year political career; therefore, it is highly unlikely that Ron Paul is racist.

The “anti-semite” attack:

The “anti-semite” attack appears to stem largely from Paul’s desire to end foreign aid to Israel. The truth is that Paul wants to end all foreign aid, not just to Israel, not just to the many Arab countries that also get U.S. aid, but to all countries. Additionally, Paul’s entire economic belief system is based upon the work of Jewish economists and thinkers; therefore, it is highly unlikely that Ron Paul is an anti-semite.

The “earmark” attack:

Paul has been criticized for putting in earmarks for his constituents in his home district in Texas. What most people don’t realize is that the practice of earmarking is a method to allocate tax money that has already been collected. Refraining from putting in earmarks does not decrease spending at all. In fact, by not putting in earmarks, the President gets the money and can then spend it how he sees fit rather than as Congress sees fit. This is blatantly unconstitutional.

The practice of putting in earmarks actually makes government spending more transparent rather than less. Earmarks account for less than 1% of the budget. Being principled on earmarks is bluster without wind.

While Ron Paul puts them in so his constituents have the opportunity to get some of their tax money back, he votes against them; therefore, Ron Paul should be commended rather than criticized for his position on earmarks.

The “can’t win” attack:

Many are critical of Paul because they feel he is “damaged goods” and doesn’t have a chance at winning should he be the Republican Party’s nominee. Many of these same people donated and cheered another “can’t win” candidate to victory in Massachusetts earlier this year.

It is unlikely that Ron Paul would win, but that doesn’t mean he can’t win. If enough people soul-search toward being free from government rather than being creatures of government, Ron Paul could be the next President of the United States.

I doubt that support could ever come from the ever-dwindling group of neo-conservative Republicans, but that support could certainly come from those on the Left who are now realizing that Obama is potentially worse than Bush on foreign policy.

The “libertarian” attack:

This attack seems to come from both the Left and the Right. The Right attempts to argue that since Paul calls himself a libertarian it means he is a libertine. They argue that he is pro-choice. He’s pro-life. They argue that he would legalize all drugs. He would return that authority to the states, where it belongs, according to the Constitution.

The Left argues that Paul’s free-market approach would leave too many without the basic necessities of life. In fact, if the government were to get out of the welfare business and stop taxing income, Americans would respond with private charity to cover many of the poor that have become dependent on government for their survival. America is the most charitable country in the world even with the tax burden. Imagine what it could be like without that burden.

Yes Ron Paul is a libertarian. So were the Founders. It is a badge of honor, not shame.

The “truther” attack:

Yes, some people actually still believe Ron Paul is a 9/11 “truther”. He is not and stated so during an appearance on Glenn Beck’s TV show during his campaign of 2008. He called some of the truther’s claims “preposterous”. No more words are needed; just watch this clip.

The “gold standard” attack:

Many people say Ron Paul wants to return to a “gold standard”. This is a misunderstanding that Paul himself does not usually get a chance to clarify during short interviews. When it comes to monetary policy Paul supports legalizing the Constitution where it states that only gold and silver can be legal tender. He advocates repealing the legal tender laws. He supports competing currencies, not necessarily a gold standard in the historical sense.

Paul believes that legalizing currencies other than the fiat dollar would utilize market forces to convert the monetary system toward a currency that would be backed by something tangible. That could be gold, silver, or whatever the market determines is best.

It’s easy to just flippantly say, “oh he’s for the gold standard”, and then follow it up with an equally flippant, “that’s just crazy and we already proved that couldn’t work.” The truth is in the details. Competing currencies could possibly bring about a de-facto gold standard, but this wouldn’t be your great-grandfather’s gold standard.

The point is to bring freedom to the monetary system, not institute some kind of regulated currency ready-made for manipulation by special interests. We already have that now.

The “end the Fed” attack:

This attack, like many others, preys on fear. The attack suggests that Paul would like to abolish the Federal Reserve the minute he takes office. Paul has stated numerous times that legalizing competing currencies (see the “gold standard” attack above) would gradually and naturally siphon power away from the Federal Reserve.

This power reduction would occur because people would likely demand the use of the hard currency instead of the fiat currency being peddled by the Fed. Another indication of this gradual approach is Paul’s bill to require a full audit of the Federal Reserve.

Sure, he’d like to just abolish the Federal Reserve, but he realizes that would be too drastic a measure for markets to remain stable if it were done too quickly.

The  “mother’s basement” attack:

This attack seems to come from envy or jealousy rather than sound reasoning. It goes something like this:

“All those Ron Paul supporters do is spam Internet polls while living in their mother’s basements!”

In fact, a Google search on “ron paul mother’s basement” yields about 62,000 results.

I’m living proof that this attack is untrue. I don’t live in my mother’s basement. My parents don’t even have a basement. In fact there is not a single Ron Paul supporter I know who lives in a basement. We own our own homes, have jobs, families, and many of us have children. We just want the government to go away and/or leave us alone.

It could more easily be argued that those who do not support the freedom found in Ron Paul’s message are living in their government’s basement.

This concludes the guided tour through my collection of Ron Paul attacks. This article may not prevent attacks on Ron Paul from the misguided and ill-informed, but hopefully it illustrates just how misguided and ill-informed the attacks are.

Liberty is not easy. Sometimes you do have to dig a little deeper to find it.

—————————————

Feel free to add your own un-attacks in the comments.

]]> http://libertymaven.com/2010/04/14/un-attacking-ron-paul/9416/feed/ 17 http://libertymaven.com/2010/02/27/why-ron-paul-is-wrong-on-every-damn-thing/9150/ http://libertymaven.com/2010/02/27/why-ron-paul-is-wrong-on-every-damn-thing/9150/#comments Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:00:50 +0000 Marc Gallagher http://libertymaven.com/?p=9150

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):

http://ohmygodronpaulwilleatallofourbabiesandourbabiesbabiesandtheirbabiesbabiesuntiltherearenobabiesleft.com/

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!

Ron Paul’s foreign policy ideas are moonbat crazy. His ideas violate the golden rule. You know, the whole “do unto others as you would have them do unto you thing”? We would be far less safe if we hadn’t flexed our military muscle in the Middle East. They only respect force and they’ve been cowering in fear of us for the last 10 years. Hopefully we’ll be able to show them who’s boss for at least 100 more years.

Ben Bernanke was overheard saying: “You can’t put a price tag on keeping America safe. Do you know where I can get discounted printer ink? After all we need to save money where we can in these trying times!”, according to a source who didn’t want to be named as a source and who spoke to me through telepathy.

It was so stupid that Ron Paul won the CPAC straw poll. It was obviously rigged by his Campaign For Liberty organization and they were all young people anyway. Everyone knows the future of the GOP will come from the old people! At least the results of the poll were booed loudly which just proves that I’m right.

Not to mention Paul is an anti-semite because he wants to cut off foreign aid to all countries and the last time we checked, Israel was a country. It couldn’t possibly defend itself with a stockpile of only 400 or so nuclear bombs. They need our help!

He’s also an obvious racist because he has a long history of hate speech following the publication of some newsletters written by someone else 25 years ago. His racism is so rampant that one could pull just about any speech of his in his decades in Congress and find the bigotry. In fact here’s one called “Government and Racism“.

It’s so easy to imagine a Klan hood over his head whenever he’s on TV espousing the virtues of some of his lilly-white heroes like Dr. Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks.

Get this through your think skulls people, Ron Paul has no chance at being the next President of the United States. He shouldn’t run because all he will do is screw up the chances for the anointed Republican nominee, who won’t be a crazy, kooky, old, skinny, wrinkly, anti-semitic, racist, isolationist with a fetish for the supreme law of the land.

Don’t you understand, we hate Barack Obama more than we love the Constitution!

The last thing America needs is a candidate that adheres so rigidly to his principles and is logically consistent in both domestic and foreign policy.

And don’t get me started on his supporters.

I then made my way to the friendly environs of the Young Americans for Liberty Youth Summit. This young group of American patriots left me impressed. There is no doubt that these students of today will be the liberty leaders of tomorrow.

Following the summit was a panel of speakers discussing why good conservatives are anti-war. The room was packed with two rows of people standing in the back. Philip Girardi, Karen Kwiatkowski, Bruce Fein, and Jacob Hornberger took turns speaking. All were excellent, but for me, Jacob Hornberger, was the best at clearly articulating all of the major arguments for a non-interventionist foreign policy. He did it with passion. It rivaled Judge Napolitano’s speech from the Liberty Forum the other night.

As I was sitting there amongst my libertarian-conservative brethren I couldn’t help but dream that some day maybe a panel like this will be in the main ballroom and the interventionists would be the smaller wing of the party relegated to a tertiary room during the conference. In fact, taking my dream further, I think it would be appropriate to one day see a lone neo-conservative “activist” handing out paper flyers to people preaching an interventionist foreign policy, only to see every single flyer crumpled up in the trash later in the day.

Upon leaving the talk I noticed a long throng of people waiting to get into the main ballroom. I chose not to wait in the line and instead sat down in a nice comfortable chair inside one of the overflow rooms to await the straw poll results and to watch Glenn Beck’s closing keynote.

After enduring a few speakers it was time to announce the straw poll results. As the data was revealed bit by bit my excitement grew because the data being presented suggested a potential Paul victory. The kicker was Jim DeMint getting the most votes for the best “image” poll. DeMint is a huge backer of Ron Paul’s Federal Reserve audit and I knew that there was no one else on the list that a Ron Paul person could support.

When they revealed the poll results, sure enough, Ron Paul won with 31% of the vote. This drew loud boos from the main ballroom, but in my overflow room there were mostly clapping and cheers. If you boo Ron Paul then you boo your Constitution.

CPAC offers a Saturday only pass, which is likely the reason, there were so many boos in the ballroom. The Saturday pass people filled up the main room early in the afternoon, then around 4pm I witnessed a volunteer tell people that it was unlikely that they would get in to the main room. This left many Ron Paul supporters filtering into the overflow rooms.

The straw poll results are not a true measure of a candidates likelihood of winning. The results demonstrate that Ron Paul has one of the most active and dedicated group of supporters in the Republican Party. Paul was the leading straw poll winner during his presidential campaign of 2008. This win could mark the 1st win for his 2012 campaign, if he chooses to run again.

Then it was time for Glenn Beck. There are many Ron Paul supporters who despise Beck. I’m not one of them. I think Beck is really good at what he does and he proved it last night. He hammered on Republicans and Democrats. He utilized some Ron Paul (and Tom Woods) talking points.

First, he educated people on the recession of 1920-1921 and compared it to the Great Depression showing that cutting spending and lower taxes help the economy. Then, in the only portion of his speech that touched on foreign policy, he professed we shouldn’t go overseas looking to spread democracy. Instead, Beck said we should set an example for other countries to emulate. I suppose I could have done without the now ubiquitous “morning in America” Reagan homage and hearing him say “I love Dick Cheney” just before being critical of good ole’ sure-shot Dick.

You can watch the entire Beck speech here at CSPAN.

You can view the full CPAC 2010 Straw Poll results here [PDF].

I leave CPAC with hope for the future of America. As long as organizations like the Campaign for Liberty and the Young Americans for Liberty exist, there will always be hope for freedom.

It’s obvious Paul is trying to get his foreign policy argument back in the public eye after Obama seems to be following the Bush doctrine in Afghanistan. The question now becomes: Will Ben Stein agree to a moderated debate on foreign policy with Ron Paul? I’d love to see it. If you’d like to see it too then feel free to use the contact information for his agent on his site to make a request.

Incidentally, I do wish Paul would pronounce Yemen correctly. He says YAY-men. It should be YEH-men. Then again I don’t support him for his speaking ability, I support him because he fights for liberty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfHrOetcSDA