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.
On the front page of today’s Morning Call was an article on the mosque to be located near Ground Zero in NYC. Below is a video statement and transcript of those remarks. My comments were misinterpreted slightly, and I absolutely do not speak for all Muslims – just myself – but the fact remains the reporter just wasn’t able to fit in my full thoughts on the matter, so the below is mainly to elaborate.
In New York, several blocks from the former site of the World Trade Center, an Islamic center and mosque is being considered. As a federal representative, it is my duty to defend the Constitution and the natural right to religious freedom as protected by the First Amendment. This freedom has its roots in how America was first settled by European religious outcasts. (Photo courtesy Rosino)
Note: The inspiration for this article originated in Chapter 1 of Judge Andrew Napolitano’s “Lies The Government Told You,” which I would be remiss not to mention. However, the Judge mostly focuses on the history of discrimination against African-Americans and former slaves, and the resulting affirmative action laws that exist today. I felt that a broader approach was warranted due to the profound implications that state-supported collectivist preference (or outright servitude) has for us all.
From the founding of this nation’s government, we have lived in a society where “all men are created equal,” but are not treated that way. In fact, at some point in America’s short history, you can probably find an example where your ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or religion has received the short end of the state’s disregard for one of the basic rights that they claim to protect. Such discrimination has also occurred in nearly every administration, across party lines, in good economic times and bad, in times of war and of peace. A common thread can be seen in each case: the discrimination has been driven by political motives and the expansion of state power.
For starters, despite the language in the Declaration of Independence, slaves of African descent were not considered equals when it came time to ratify the Constitution. Although some of the Founders were opposed to slavery (such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin), the institution was nonetheless implemented and was kept in tact – largely for economic reasons – until after the Civil War. Even when Abraham Lincoln took office, the only major push to end slavery – the Emancipation Proclamation – was made for political reasons by Lincoln, who wished to create a slave uprising in the Confederate states.
Throughout the first half of the 20th century, racial segregation continued to oppress African-Americans, mostly for the political benefit of those in power (affluent white males). Starting in the 1910s and 20s, the federal government embarked on a national housing segregation program which denied housing loans to those living in “areas in decline” (majority black neighborhoods), since it was believed that the presence of blacks in a white neighborhood would bring down property values. Historically black neighborhoods were destroyed to make way for elevated highways which connected white neighborhoods. Politicians, eager to gain the votes of those white voters in the majority opinion, happily violated the rights of the minority race, both to gain re-election and to expand government power in housing and transportation.
Ron Paul delivered an excellent speech at CPAC this afternoon. He received a lot of applause and cheering for many of his lines. There were some obvious skeptics and shaking of heads in the audience as well, but overall he was on his game and hit all of his talking points and then some.
He talked about his bill calling for more Federal Reserve transparency. He claims it is getting bipartisan support in the Congress. That would be a great first step. He also spoke about abortion, foreign policy, and individual vs. groups with respect to liberty.
There were a few lines that I loved. It reminded me of the many rallies during his campaign in 2007 and and early 2008.
When I heard William “BJ” Lawson speak for the first time in person I said to myself, “This is the Ron Paul Republican who can win”. Then I checked out his opponent David Price and immediately thought, “I know Lawson can win.” At first glance, the problem is the heavily Democratic North Carolina district he is in, but if you dig a bit deeper, Lawson is the perfect candidate for a district of this kind. He is not your normal present day Republican. Lawson has the ability to attract those on all sides of the political spectrum much like Ron Paul did during his own campaign.
Below you will discover the Liberty Maven rankings for BJ Lawson on the Paul-O-Meter, where candidates and current lawmakers can be rated on how closely they are in line with Dr. Ron Paul on the issues. To learn about the Paul-O-Meter methodology please see this article. You may also assign your own rankings or request a candidate be added to the system.
Continue reading to see if BJ Lawson truly deserves the moniker “Ron Paul Jr.”
The final question that was posed to Bob Barr during the live debate event at Reason Magazine’s headquarters in Washington DC was regarding the snub of Ron Paul and Paul’s endorsement of Chuck Baldwin.
10:48- Bob Barr: [Responding to, "Final question: You had a very public falling out with Ron Paul. What went wrong? And what would you say to Paul supporters?"] They ought to be disappointed in Ron Paul. Endorsing a theocratic candidate makes little sense whatsoever. What we’re trying to do is what we hoped Ron Paul would have done, which is to provide true focused leadership.
As hard it is for me to admit, I think Bob Barr is right here to a certain extent. I think there were many who were disappointed in Ron Paul. Of course there were also many who were disappointed in Bob Barr as well. As I’ve written before, I am disappointed in both.
While I don’t believe Baldwin wants a theocracy as Barr accuses, Baldwin’s historical statements on policy backed by religion worry me greatly. So it matters little to me that Ron Paul is endorsing Chuck Baldwin now. I will not vote for him.
Bob Barr’s type of “true focused leadership” is likely different than Ron Paul’s type of leadership. Paul is focusing on education and activism. Barr is all about furthering his own standing in the election and propping up the Libertarian Party as legitimate.
Now after the Barr snub, Paul chooses to endorse Baldwin, more or less. This comes off as a bit like a couple of stubborn kids arguing over toys when what we lovers of liberty need is a bit of unity. Unity is no longer in the cards when it comes to voting for liberty this year.
I’m disappointed in both Barr and Paul, but the real travesty is the wasted potential for spreading the freedom message to the masses. Paul blew it when he originally chose to help his own party’s nominee by endorsing no individual candidate. Barr blew it by over-reacting to Paul’s decision.
They are equally culpable, but because Barr will be the one on the ballot in my state he will get my vote and Ron Paul will get my support for his educational and activist efforts.
If they won’t show unity themselves, I will bridge their differences with my own advocacy.
It is now time to rate the vice presidential candidates on the Paul-O-Meter. We start with John McCain’s VP pick Sarah Palin. The perfect strategic pick for McCain, Palin has little history. She’s been Governor of Alaska for less than two years, but now that McCain’s handlers are pulling Palin’s puppet strings it is difficult to see a difference between the two.
Here we examine Palin on 20 issues to see how she stacks up to Ron Paul. Hopefully this will help some see the lips through the lipstick.
It is now Ralph Nader’s turn to be viewed through the Ron Paul colored glasses of the Paul-O-Meter. The Paul-O-Meter rates the candidates on how closely they resemble Ron Paul on the issues. For a complete description and methodology of the Paul-O-Meter please see this article. Thus far we have rated Barack Obama, John McCain, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin.
UPDATE: Chuck Baldwin’s Communications Director posted a comment clarifying his position on a few of the issues. This has modified Baldwin’s overall score. Read the comments for more details.
It is now Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin’s turn to be spun through the Paul-O-Meter. So far we have rated Barack Obama, John McCain, and Bob Barr. Will Chuck Baldwin beat Bob Barr’s current high score of 88? Read on to find out.