Why Ron Paul Is THE Objectivist Moral Imperative

atlascott's picture
Submitted by atlascott on Tue, 2010-03-23 20:42

The answer is context.

The largest danger to America right now is from within.

Totalitarianism, Federal Bankruptcy, the rule of man/crony capitalism and de facto destruction of the Constitution are, far and away, the most destructive and pressing issues we face.

NOT ensuring the right to gay marriage, NOT ensuring the right to on-demand, government-paid abortion, NOT ensuring constant ongoing wars in the Middle East.

We are approaching catastrophe, and none of the issues recounted in the above sentence matter, and all of the issues in the sentence which precede it are.

The Tea Party Movement is dead. It was irrelevant in the Health Care bill debate, and has been discredited by the Left and the GOP, each falsely, and for reasons of political power. Anger is great but it is not a political platform.

Objectivism has failed, epically, in creating a political movement, platfrom, or politician.

Sara Palin does not have the ideas or the gas.

Glenn Beck will likely not enter politics.

Solutions to these problems, it is clear, do not spring from within the GOP. Mitt Romney? Preposterous.

There is ONE and ONLY ONE recognizable figure on the national stage with a consistent, pro-liberty voting record who has a large national fan-base and any chance whatsoever in a national election.

That man is Ron Paul. RON PAUL.

In a world of corruption and decay, there has NEVER been been a simpler or clearer choice, in context.

It is Ron Paul, or withdraw in futility, as a Gail Wynand or in brave defiance, as a Billy Beck.

The number of roads from which to choose are narrowing.

This is it: understand the context of this crisis, and act.

Contribute to Ron Paul's campaign, support him. Objectivists and Objectivism, support a religious man for the highest office in the land, because he is PRINCIPLED in a way no other candidate is or has been for years.

He is the last and only hope for the Republic in a national election.


Big Bad Ron Paul

Richard Goode's picture

I agree ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I like to see well stated arguments from ideologies or positions I disagree with. It makes my own understanding of Objectivism better.

I always say if ours is a contest of ideas then we must engage in that contest. Even so—perhaps because so—I'm often left incredulous.

Ayn Rand was the first to say there must be an orderly measured implementation of our principles (barring the chaos of revolution) at the political level, with the transition to voluntary taxation being the "last reform" to b effected. If someone comes along and says he's going to abolish the IRS and Federal Reserve overnight—and also says he'll abandon Israel—that's not, overall, an Objectivist platform, as far as I can tell.

Enthusiasm for Paul

Doug Bandler's picture

The enthusiasm for Paul on this site has had me rubbing my eyes and thinking maybe *I* was crazy!

This site is open and because of that it attracts more libertarianish Objectivists. Thus the greater respect for Ron Paul. But that's fine though. I like to see well stated arguments from ideologies or positions I disagree with. It makes my own understanding of Objectivism better.

Bravo Bandler!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

The enthusiasm for Paul on this site has had me rubbing my eyes and thinking maybe *I* was crazy!

That interview is stomach-churning in its treachery.

I change my opinion on Ron Paul

Doug Bandler's picture

After reading and thinking about Ron Paul, I have completely changed my opinion of him. I think he is a disgrace. Here is a link to an interview between Ron Paul and Don Imus:

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

Ron Paul makes the following arguments:

1) Israel is keeping food from entering Gaza.

2) Gaza is "almost like a concentration camp."

3) Israel has no right to keep weapons from Hamas because "Hamas is an elected government."

These are not legitimate, rational arguments. These are idiotic (and factually incorrect) arguments that mimic Muslim / Leftist / PaleCon / Buchananite arguments. Ron Paul is a disgrace. He absolutely is NOT a moral imperative for Objectivists. We need to do our best to distance ourselves from this man.

After reading Leftist commentary somewhat extensively since the economic meltdown, I have become utterly disgusted with them more than I ever was before. I have no respect for those who make Leftist arguments especially if they claim to not be a Leftist. Ron Paul's views on Israel and foreign policy are too repulsive for me to overlook. He is essentially saying in the above linked interview that Israel does not have a right to exist. No, he doesn't say that explicitly but that is the ultimate consequence of his views. In that way he is on the same side as the Left and the Muslims and the PaleoCons; the three groups I detest more than anything else in this universe. So my earlier comments regarding Paul are voided.

Why a bee-sting on a cancer patient...

Olivia's picture

is such a profoundly inept metaphor for the Islamic threat to the West...

http://online.wsj.com/article/...

This is a long twilight war, the struggle against radical Islamism. We can't wish it away. No strategy of winning "hearts and minds," no great outreach, will bring this struggle to an end. America can't conciliate these furies. These men of nowhere—Faisal Shahzad, Nidal Malik Hasan, the American-born renegade cleric Anwar Awlaki now holed up in Yemen and their likes—are a deadly breed of combatants in this new kind of war. Modernity both attracts and unsettles them. America is at once the object of their dreams and the scapegoat onto which they project their deepest malignancies. [Fouad Ajami]

As Mr Ajami points out, this enemy is already well within the gates.... of nearly every Western democracy on earth.

I more or less agree

Doug Bandler's picture

At this point, I think domestic economic policy is more important than the fight against Islamic Jihad. Besides if we did get hit by the Religion-Of-Peace, Ron Paul could not act on his libertarian pacifism. He would be forced to do something. But his better inclinations would prevent him from engaging in more nation building. So, he would probably end up doing something better than Bush.

But if he approached his domestic agenda of scaling back government with the same tenacity that Obama has approached his Alinskyite agenda, he could be a force of great good. Sadly, he is just too old. But how is his son Rand? Could his son be the Reagan we are looking for?

I agree with Scott D.

James Heaps-Nelson's picture

Scott D,

I agree with you. I've excoriated Ron Paul on foreign affairs matters, especially his refusal to honor the Iranian protestors. However, we need to put the federal government and especially Bernanke's Federal Reserve under white hot lights NOW. It is Ron Paul's promise to veto spending bills wholesale and stidently oppose the Federal Reserve that's got my support this time. In 2012, the Afghan and Iraq wars are going to be a memory. We need someone who is going to defend the constitution domestically. Ron Paul 2012.

Jim

Lindsay

Kasper's picture

Has an agent.... I just thought it was a bit of a gloss over for Scott not to address Lindsay's proposal.

This is silly

Ross Elliot's picture

Lindsay doesn't have an agent?

Jesus, even I have an agent.

Steve

Agents work on a percentage and don't require a retainer. And they're a dime a dozen. No excuses not to have one.

Scott

Kasper's picture

What about this one???? Can you do it?

In the past you have paid me the compliment of saying I should be on American TV. Here's something *you* can do, Big Boy. Be my agent. Let's make it happen! Take a look at my CV on lindsayperigo.com and go for it. I'll make you rich beyond your wildest dreams, *before* America goes down the tube!

Two good points

Ross Elliot's picture

"Out next step is NOT to support a GOP candidate, any more than it is to give Obama "four more years..."

Now, Lindsay railed against the suggestion that in the last election, Dems be voted for across the board. And rightly so. Above, Scott's point is identical. The idea that one would vote for a prototypical GOP hack like, say, a Romney or a Crist, is just as unconscionable. They are the problem. That is, the most urgent problem.

"Individualism is poison to cooperation and compromise, sometimes. We all want the perfect. But the perfect is not on the table. The infinitely better MAY be on the table."

That's not the fault of individualism per se, but as I said earlier, the desire of individuals to be left alone to live their lives. You can only illuminate Rand's adage about being interested in politics so she wouldn't have to be interested in politics.

Okee dokee

atlascott's picture

" *Dr.* Paul has never blamed America for a terrorist attack.

I cited his assertion that 9/11 was "blowback" during the 2008 campaign. You ignore this."

I have addressed this, I think, three times. Either you aren't reading, are ignoring, or disagree. I cannot tell which, and I am done trying to figure it out. Ron Paul has never blamed America for a terrorist attack.

"My analysis is that rampant unreason is the core danger and such entities as you mention are symptomatic of it. You might care to compare Rubinstein to Sun Ra on the current music gem thread and tell me I'm wrong. I believe Objectivists should oppose rampant unreason in all its forms and this one has been neglected because of Rand's error regarding the possibility of objective judgment in music. How this makes me less effective as a freedom fighter is unclear to me."

Some manifestations of unreason are more dangerous and pressing than others. That's called understanding the context of a crisis. I saw that Sun Ra thing and I felt like my ears were being raped. But music is the least of our concerns right now. That you focus on it and other non-hot-potatoes ~does~ limit your effectiveness as a "freedom fighter."

"I'm not sure what else you'd have me do."

Stop granting bad music urgency-equivalence with the quickening march of totalitarianism. Start realizing that Reagan was a big government religious Republican who did some bad things, much as I love him and much as I wish we had him today. He wasn't perfect, nor is Ron Paul. Once you see the crisis as hierarchical, where your support should vest becomes pretty clear.

Changing the world is a massive project. Every large project causes analysis paralysis and inaction based on not knowing where to start. The solution to the conundrum is the human mind, and its ability to sort, analyze, and decide what the next step ought to be. You will never do that until you prioritize. For example, foreign policy is meaningless if domestic destruction occurs.

Out next step is NOT to support a GOP candidate, any more than it is to give Obama "four more years" [I can hear the chanting already...].

It is to throw our weight behind a principled candidate who understands freedom and the economy and has integrity like none other. And to try to get others to throw their weight behind him. And to urge Tea Partiers to do so. And urge disillusioned Democrats to do so. And disgusted Republicans to do so. To fight the smaear against Ron Paul and Tea Partiers. To spread Ayn Rand's words, Ron Paul's words, to teach American history, respect for the Constitution.

Before it comes to blood, reasonable men do what they can to avoid bloodshed and move the bastion of liberty back to her roots. That means participating in a maybe-broken and maybe-futile and definitely frustrating democratic process. It means using your mind, taking a stand, and acting despite the risk that Ivory Tower Objectivists and Hollywood actors and anarchists will call you names. It even comes along with the possibility that you are wrong.

But we are living the alternative. We are living now what happens when reasonable men of good conscience keep their mouth closed and their asses in their seats.

Individualism is poison to cooperation and compromise, sometimes. We all want the perfect. But the perfect is not on the table. The infinitely better MAY be on the table.

It is the good or contribute to the lethargy that allows evil.

I know you are not my enemy. You are my friend. Probably a few people on this site think I am a bastard, but in reality, they, too, are my friends, because they are lovers of liberty. Even Billy Beck is my friend, though he might threaten to "gut me like a pig" for suggesting it. I count as allies and friend all lovers of liberty and all those who distrust government. They are right to distrust government.

I guess my task here, futile as it may turn out to be, is to waken all lovers of liberty, for whatever reasons they have, to the fact that we are all friends, all allies against the alternative.

If we can accomplish this, then we shall be mighty. But mighty in service to protecting our rights to pursue our own lives and dreams as we see fit, not to impose ours upon others at the point of a gun.

Big Boy

Lindsay Perigo's picture

1) You claimed:

*Dr.* Paul has never blamed America for a terrorist attack.

I cited his assertion that 9/11 was "blowback" during the 2008 campaign. You ignore this.

2) You say:

Your assertion that I believe him to be infallible is ironic on a site a significant portion of which is dedicated to defending Ayn Rand's perfection. It is also not true.

I didn't assert that you deem *Dr.* Paul to be infallible. I said you've got religion with regard to him, as the repeated use of the honorific indicates. Not to mention the seeming determination to support him come hell or high water. And I don't claim Ayn Rand was infallible. I claim that if moral perfection is to be defined as conscientious adherence to rational principles, then Ayn Rand, as best as can be told, was morally perfect. Doesn't mean she didn't make mistakes.

3) You say:

Or, it may be that you do not share my diagnosis as to what is killing America. It's your prerogative to make you own analysis. Maybe it IS Lady GaGa and Kei$a that are the core danger.

That is not my analysis. My analysis is that rampant unreason is the core danger and such entities as you mention are symptomatic of it. You might care to compare Rubinstein to Sun Ra on the current music gem thread and tell me I'm wrong. I believe Objectivists should oppose rampant unreason in all its forms and this one has been neglected because of Rand's error regarding the possibility of objective judgment in music. How this makes me less effective as a freedom fighter is unclear to me.

4) You say:

I have said clearly what the dangers are. It is shocking to me that as many folks on this site think that the War on Terror is going well enough to continue it as it has been.

I doubt a single one of us thinks that. But the fact that it's *not* going well is no reason not to wage it properly or to stop waging it altogether.

5) You say:

But the crisis is NOW and history will bear me out, as will my observation that naysayers are doing what we have all observed ARI has done -- watched on the sidelines. And history will bear out that you fiddled whilst Rome burned, with an occasional caustic turn of phrase and some hand-wringing. Music and whether Frank O'Connor ever took a drink are such attenuated issues.

I'm not sure what else you'd have me do. I fight the good fight as best I know how, including on this site, your own support for which has been generous and is appreciated. I rewrote your effing Declaration of Independence and supplied you with a modified Libz document that is essentially your current Constitution without its current flaws. I've suggested a tactic, harmless yet eloquent which, if widely adopted, would scare the bejeesus out of the statist Establishment and give it pause. I've done press releases and op-eds for Africa. I fight filth in whatever guise it presents itself. Of course, none of this has had the slightest effect, but I'm doing what I can. I can't think what else I can do. If your answer is, "Root for Ron Paul," I cannot in all conscience do that for reasons already advanced.

In the past you have paid me the compliment of saying I should be on American TV. Here's something *you* can do, Big Boy. Be my agent. Let's make it happen! Take a look at my CV on lindsayperigo.com and go for it. I'll make you rich beyond your wildest dreams, *before* America goes down the tube!

6) You conclude:

At least you will enjoy fine music as the sun sets on America for good.

You can count on it. But we've got a few years yet. Let's make the most of 'em!!

Not religious

atlascott's picture

Aspects of Dr. Paul's foreign policy make sense. I have said that in my view his is sub-optimal. Not worse than the costly mish-mash of futility and corruption we have now. I am all for reducing America's foreign footprint and limiting it to support of our allies, and keeping some level of rapid response ability as necessary. I also agree that you cannot immediately pull up stakes. A lot of this stuff would have to be phased out.

Your assertion that I believe him to be infallible is ironic on a site a significant portion of which is dedicated to defending Ayn Rand's perfection. It is also not true.

What seems true is that you appear to have made some snap judgments which you choose not to revisit. That is your choice.

Or, it may be that you do not share my diagnosis as to what is killing America. It's your prerogative to make you own analysis. Maybe it IS Lady GaGa and Kei$a that are the core danger.

I think that view is deluded, if it is the one that you hold. I have said clearly what the dangers are. It is shocking to me that as many folks on this site think that the War on Terror is going well enough to continue it as it has been. None of the naysayers have offered a better political option though I am a great admirer of Mr. Rubio and am hopeful of Rand Paul.

But the crisis is NOW and history will bear me out, as will my observation that naysayers are doing what we have all observed ARI has done -- watched on the sidelines. And history will bear out that you fiddled whilst Rome burned, with an occasional caustic turn of phrase and some hand-wringing. Music and whether Frank O'Connor ever took a drink are such attenuated issues.

We know where the road of harsh judgment and inaction leads. We get the worst option. Objectivists supporting Democrats and Barack Obama.

We are not going to survive nationalized health care. We will for 5 or so years, then we will be broke with crummy health care. History will bear out that the Federal government will just be an enforcement arm for private industry, and the insurance industry will cover who they want, for the price they want, and provide coverage for what they want, and send the bill to the Treasury. That is how this con is going to work.

As costs spiral out of control, sick people who rely on charity now to get their needed mediation, will get none under the new plan. If they control costs, we will have sub-optimal doctors. There will be a doctor shortage, and medical mistakes are going to spiral out of control. People are going to die under this plan in a myriad of ways, all foreseeable.

They will ratchet up the fear while we devolve into a Third World country, and we will cede more power to corruption and then, our Constitution really WILL be meaningless. In the panic, there will be votes to amend the Constitution, and it WILL be amended - Protect the Planet Amendment; Redistribution of Wealth Amendment; President for Life Amendment. Stock television footage of some guy living in a desert chanting "Death to America" will be prophetic, but not in ways the guy in the desert could ever have imagined.

I wonder how many boots we will have on the ground when we have a Federal Bankruptcy? I wonder how effective liberty lovers will be when all free speech is suspended? I wonder in what year waterboarding will be used on Tea Partiers -- the same power YOU want to grant to the Federal government because you trust these animals enough to use it justly? How long til Constitutionalists begin disappearing? How long until America becomes truly and permanently Orwellian?

That is how dire this is -- I already don't recognize this place and these people who call themselves Americans and the change is accelerating in the face of our inaction because the good guys can't get their shit together. And by "good guys" I do not mean Republicans.

Well, for my part, I will continue to support Ron Paul, and possibly Rand Paul and Mr. Rubio. At least you will enjoy fine music as the sun sets on America for good.

Scott ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

You say:

But Ron Paul has never placed moral blame on America or Americans for any terrorist attack. The GOP first tried that smear, and it is disheartening to see smart Objectivists fall for it.

But he did. In one of the debates among the Republican hopefuls he said 9/11 was "blowback." That's how this whole "blowback" controversy first arose. I remember at the time saying that did it for me. He was beneath contempt as far as I was concerned from that point on. If I'm not mistaken Giuliani said something similar right there on the spot.

I'm afraid, Scott, you've got religion. Calling him "Dr. Paul" reminds me of the Randroids who reverentially genuflect to "Dr. Peikoff" and "Miss Rand." No one reveres these two more than I, but for debate purposes they are Rand and Peikoff, not infallible sources of Holy Writ, and truth is more important than both of them. As it is more important than "Dr. Paul." He's a Saddamite, and I won't look past that.

The war on terror is a

Richard Wiig's picture

The war on terror is a misnomer, and the problem of Islam should be a top priority. It is a grave threat. I can't abide Ron Paul's foreign policy. He would withdraw forces from friendly nations, cut ties with allies, do nothing while Iran arms itself with nukes, and leave Israel to the wolves. Israel isn't a welfare case, it's an ally whose enemy is our enemy.

Since the War on Terror is not a top priority, I am willing to accept a sub-optimal foreign policy

Marco Rubio

Jason Quintana's picture

I respect Ron Paul. He is a principled Misesian who didn't pay enough attention to Ayn Rand. He is an important advocate for certain things, and the only semi-important person in the government who understands economics and is willing to say something about it. I can't get too excited about this kind of libertarian because I have been arguing with these people for years.

There aren't many interesting candidates out there. I like this guy in Florida -- Marco Rubio. He is a very interesting conservative. Probably too new to be a presidential candidate, but I am rooting for him.

You STILL Don't Get It

atlascott's picture

And neither does Bidinotto.

Ron Paul loves America. He does NOT blame America for violence against her and her citizens.

He DOES say that there is no support in the Constitution for the Federal government to interfere all over the world, and to have military bases all over the world.

When you have military bases all over, and you involve your forces all over, guess what? American tax dollars are spent for no good American reason, and American lives are lost for no good American reason.

Would nations have a better opinion of the US if we did not stick our nose in their business, and were otherwise trade partners with them? Rather than, say, toppling their government and trying to build our version of a government for them? How could this NOT be the case?

Would this result in a safe, idyllic world where Muslims do not fight, and we are never attacked? Of course not, and shame on you and Bidinotto for suggesting that such is his position.

Aaron hits it on the head -- there are consequences to all actions, and there are consequences when the US does what it does. That is all "blowback" means, but you and Bidinotto have constructed a fanciful Frankenstein monster of what Dr. Paul's foreign policy is, rather than reading his books and discovering what it actually is.

I also agree with Aaron as to this point: repeating nonsense without analyzing the nonsense for some modicum of veracity is not the act of an honest mind. Do some more work and then come back and show that your explanation of Dr. Paul's foreign policy is based more on a misguided quote. I understand that it is easier to blank out to some opera or classical music, but thinking is necessary.

Dr. Paul does not have a malignant view of America. But, when America does something immoral or stupid, unlike some Objectivists, he has the integrity and honesty to identify those issues IN ORDER TO CORRECT THEM.

To dispute "blowback" you must then support everything America has done in her foreign policy. If you concede that an American foreign policy decision has ever had negative consequences, then congratulations, you understand "blowback".

I agree that Dr. Paul is not as good an orator as Reagan. But domestically, he is an Objectivist's wet-dream compared to Reagan.

There are other compelling reasons to keep a large and technologically advanced and well-trained military, given America's enemies.

But Ron Paul has never placed moral blame on America or Americans for any terrorist attack. The GOP first tried that smear, and it is disheartening to see smart Objectivists fall for it.

I agree

atlascott's picture

Richard, you probably know that I agree with your analysis of Islam.

In some parts, we talk past each other. Here is why, I think: there is current military strategy, then there is the strategy you would prefer, and then there is the strategy I would prefer.

Right now, we have the strategy we have gotten from folks who do not understand Islam, and who are ALSO not Constitutionalists, and are Statists, and frankly, morons.

Neither you nor I evidently support the current strategy and massive intelligence expenditures. Neither does Ron Paul.

I posit that we have maybe NEVER had a President who has understood Islam half as well as you do, yet they were our President nontheless.

Since the War on Terror is not a top priority, I am willing to accept a sub-optimal foreign policy which will dismantle great evils -- tremendous cost of lives and loss of dollars in actions we both seem to agree are not correct.

Again, we must analyze based upon the current crisis context, and the crisis has little or nothing to do with Islam right at this moment.

Ron Paul would be no worse in foreign policy that Barack "Bower" Obama or George "Islam Means Peace" Bush.

And we have more pressing needs which bear on our existence as a Republic.

Aaron

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Where did I say I'd root for Obama?

And seriously, given all the anti-Obama press releases and op-eds I've put out, and that I'm on record saying he deserves the fate of Mussolini, how can you even imply I'd contemplate doing so?

The uncertainty I express about how I'd root given such a scenario as Obama vs. Paul is based precisely on Obama's comprehensive evil, such that, despising Ron Paul and all as I do, I'd still consider rooting for him (Paul), if it came to that, given the alternative (Obama). Which part of that is not clear?

It shouldn't come to that. Rather than putting their eggs in the SaddaPaul basket, Objectivists should eschew their traditional disdain for political activism and help in the quest for a decent candidate. And hang nooses from trees!

"Ron Paul has become the most

Aaron's picture

"Ron Paul has become the most visible exponent of that malignant view of America. In my mind, his "blowback" excuse for 9/11 -- and "excuse" is exactly what his "explanation" amounts to"

Repeat it as many times as you like, but you can't make explaining someone's motives the same as excusing or justifying their actions. To want to avoid explanations is just willful ignorance, evasion. And if Ron Paul really thought the 9/11 terrorists justified it wouldn't exactly make sense to support the initial excursion into Afghanistan or to call for letters of marque and reprisal.

And speaking both of Reagan and attempting to smear Paul as some pacifist or America-hater... Remember Ron Paul defended Israel's bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor in the 80s - while the Reagan administration opposed it. (and we don't want another Reagan. he talked the talk but was no friend of capitalism when it came to action, and was in general a terrible appeaser concerning terrorism and the middle east).

When the US wasn't building military bases in and occupying countries 'over there', what were those in the middle east doing? Waging a concerted war to bring down the US because we're rich - or occasionally fighting ineffectual wars against Israel and even fighting bloody wars amongst themselves? And if the US just pulled out its troops now and went home, which do you really think is more likely: a renewed unified effort to kill the infidel 10,000 miles away - or civil war between rival warlords (in Afghanistan) or Sunni and Shia (in Iraq) with thousands of muslims killing each other?

"Even if it came down to Paul vs. Obama in 2012 I doubt I'd root for Paul."

Wow. Rooting for Obama over Paul would reach a new pinnacle of irrationality. You'd think Ron Paul personally killed your puppy and raped your mother to make you that blinded by hatred for him as to wish Obama upon us.

Aaron

Ron is no Ronnie

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Doug Bandler asks:

Is another Reagan even possible now? If it isn't, how is it the case that 60 years after Rand we can't even get a Reagan-style Republican but the 80s saw the likes of a Reagan and a Thatcher? Have things become worse? Has altruism and egalitarianism strengthened their death grip on the culture? Tough to forecast what direction we are going in.

I should say the fact that Ronnie and Maggie have been undone so soon after their seemingly irreversible triumphs is testament to the fact that they were both necessary but not sufficient. We need someone with Reagan's oratorical gifts but who is sounder philosophically. Ron Paul doesn't come a trillion miles within anywhere remotely within cooee.

I can't say for sure, but even if it came down to Paul vs. Obama in 2012 I doubt I'd root for Paul. Certainly I find it incomprehensible that Objectivists would be putting their eggs in his basket at this point. I cannot look past "blowback," a most contemptible concept, if I may use that expression again without having it blow back at me. To imagine those nice Muslims will stop their Jihad if only America the Bad Guy will leave them alone is naive beyond the point of stupidity. To blame America for Jihad in the first place is contemptible beyond the point of evil. In this regard, since Robert Winefield mentioned my old sparring partner Robert ("Don't call be Bob") Bidinotto's anti-Paul stance, I decided to track down what RB had said. I couldn't find the full article from which this is excerpted anywhere accessible, but this KASS extract is right on the money—the conclusion in particular:

Dr. Paul (he's an M.D., as well as a congressman) has become the nation's foremost proponent of a foreign policy of U.S. "noninterventionism." This view holds that past American policies abroad have been immorally aggressive against other nations, provoking them to "react" against us in understandable, if not always justifiable, ways. By this interpretation of history, which parallels that of the communists and Islamists, America has been the great disturber of international peace. We are ever creating enemies where none really existed before. We did it during the Cold War; we've done it in the Middle East; we're continuing to do it today.

Dr. Paul's libertarian prescription? If only we'd stop meddling in the "internal affairs" of other nations and bring our troops home, the world would be a better, safer, healthier place. Al Qaeda and other terrorists, having no further reasons to hate us, would either become peaceful or aim their aggressions elsewhere.

Now, I'd like to point out an interesting parallel between this common libertarian view of America's foreign enemies, and the common liberal view of America's domestic criminals.

The same sort of arguments advanced by many libertarians, such as Rep. Paul, to "explain" the anti-American actions of foreign terrorists, also have been offered by liberals to "explain" the heinous acts of common criminals. Read any sociology or criminology text, and you'll find endless laundry lists of "causal explanations" for crime: poverty, neglect, poor parenting, lousy schools, poor "socialization," inadequate pre-natal care, hunger, disease, bullying, racism, police brutality, social stigmatizing, untreated psychological disorders, victimless-crime laws...you name it.

And in both cases -- foreign and domestic -- it's always American culture, society, and/or policies that are the toxic "root causes" underlying the actions of those who attack us.

Just as many libertarians like Paul treat the actions of al Qaeda and other terrorists as "blowback" for the sins of American society against them, liberal social-science professionals treat the actions of home-grown criminal thugs as "blowback" for the alleged sins of American society against them. These bloody acts are never the terrorist's or the criminal's "fault" (responsibility), you see; rather, they are all our fault, for "driving him" to do his dastardly deeds.

You may remember that during the Cold War, precisely the same sort of "explanations" were offered by liberals and, later, by left-libertarians such as Murray Rothbard to lay the blame for Communist aggression at the West's (especially America's) doorstep. It was our imperialist provocations around the world that were "driving" the Soviet bloc to "respond" by conquering and butchering millions, building weapons of mass destruction, constructing the Berlin Wall, etc. It was our economic and cultural "imperialism" that was driving indigenous peoples everywhere into the arms of the communists.

I defy anyone to draw a rational, meaningful distinction between such "explanations" for criminal or terrorist aggression, and "excuses" for it. After all, "causal explanations" for human actions aim at exonerating the actor for committing them, by treating those acts as if they were not under the actor's conscious, volitional control, but as if they were instead deterministically driven "responses" to external provocations or "causes."

Just as I reject the liberal "excuse-making industry" that denies volition and rationalizes the acts of criminals, I am totally fed up with the disgraceful foreign-policy perspectives of those libertarians who portray the United States as the causal agent of every evil on earth -- thus rationalizing the atrocities of foreign terrorists and despots.

Ron Paul has become the most visible exponent of that malignant view of America. In my mind, his "blowback" excuse for 9/11 -- and "excuse" is exactly what his "explanation" amounts to -- is sufficient to completely disqualify him for any American public office, let alone for the role of commander in chief of the U.S. military.

That's why

gregster's picture

he's Commander Wiig, Doug. Smiling

Richard

Doug Bandler's picture

Awesome commentary on Islam. Too many Objectivists shy away from identifying Islam itself as the enemy. The enemy is not "Radical Islam" or "Totalitarian Islam" (I hate when Yaron Brook uses that term - he should know better) or "Islamo-Fascism", etc.. Our enemy is properly defined as Sharia-Islam, pure-Islam, literalist-Islam or just plain old Islam itself.

I'm mixed on Ron Paul. He's the only US politician who has even heard of the Austrian school of Economics. That is to the good. But he has too many of the libertarian pathologies especially in the area of foreign policy. And he does seem to be a serious Christian. How is his son Rand? He seems to have made a few good speeches lately. Could he be the next Reagan?

Is another Reagan even possible now? If it isn't, how is it the case that 60 years after Rand we can't even get a Reagan-style Republican but the 80s saw the likes of a Reagan and a Thatcher? Have things become worse? Has altruism and egalitarianism strengthened their death grip on the culture? Tough to forecast what direction we are going in.

But assuming for the sake of

Richard Wiig's picture

But assuming for the sake of argument, let's say you are right, and Ron Paul thinks that Islam is no different that, say, Catholicism.

It's not a case of does he think Islam is the same or different from Catholicism. It's a question of does he understand the enemy. Clearly he doesn't.

Hey, you know what? That's MY money! And the money of my countrymen. What did we get for it?

I have no quarrel there.

So your response will be: we have dealt serious blows to al Quaeda.

No. I haven't supported an ongoing effort to rebuild Iraq. I don't believe it weakens the enemy.

My response to that is: there are any number of other ways we could have done that and spent less than one tenth the cost and one one thousandth in American lives: hint - letters of marque and reprisal, and distance attacks rather than boots on the ground, forever.

I'm no military strategist, and neither is Ron Paul. If boots on the ground are necessary to do a job, such as depose Saddam, then boots on the ground it must be. But that's all another issue, and it requires a full understanding on the enemy to arrive at an adequate answer.

I was one of those who pointed out that Islam encourages lying to the enemy. But, when terrorist leaders say, over, and over and OVER that the reason they are attacking us is because we are occupying their lands, shouldn't we at least CONSIDER America's history in the Middle East?

Not just Americas history in the Middle East, but the whole history in the Middle East, particularly the history of Islam. You don't have to go far to find out that US presence in the Middle East isn't the problem. The texts and tenets of Islam is the problem.

America has been bombing and performing missile strikes or other military action in the Middle East on an almost continuous basis for the last 25 years - more than 25 years. Did you know that? Is that how you win hearts and minds?

Why do you want to win hearts and minds? Fuck the hearts and minds of savages and tyrants.

Our government is spending more than 75 billion on intelligence and are getting almost nothing for the money.

I have no quarrel there. Government always needs to be made accountable and they should strive for quality in their proper functions - which is what elections will be for in a Libertarian world - but security is a proper function. Inefficiencies in their proper function isn't an argument against security measures, and just as too much can be spent, so can too little. A proper identification of the enemy is a basis for rational budgeting.

Our enemy is a few hundred to a few thousand,

Our enemy is in the millions. Our enemy is Islam.

Finally, if you accept the premise that al Quaeda is not a top 3 pressing problem, as I have outlined in my essay,

I dont' see Al Qaeda as a major problem. I see Islam as a major problem, of which Al Qaeda is just a part. I also see peoples inablity to be honest as a major problem.

And you people wonder why non-Objectivists look at Objectivism as such a curiosity?

I never wonder that.

Disagreed - but...

atlascott's picture

I do not agree that the clip you posted is a definitive or even particularly telling one.

But assuming for the sake of argument, let's say you are right, and Ron Paul thinks that Islam is no different that, say, Catholicism.

That doesn't change the fact that the US has spent trillions in a decade long war. With these expenditures have come private industry war profiteering that has never been examined. My most current understanding is that there are tens of million of dollars which have "dissappeared" -- no one knows who got the money or where it went.

Hey, you know what? That's MY money! And the money of my countrymen. What did we get for it?

Well, Afghanistan and Iraq are both still unstable wherever US forces are not around. We spent billions or trillions to topple 2 governments with no plan as to what to do next.

How many Americans died and wives and husbands and parents lost a loved one becasue our military has been turned into an occupying police? There is no Constituional authority for what we are going over there, either.

So your response will be: we have dealt serious blows to al Quaeda.

My response to that is: there are any number of other ways we could have done that and spent less than one tenth the cost and one one thousandth in American lives: hint - letters of marque and reprisal, and distance attacks rather than boots on the ground, forever.

You know, when I was a kid, it was always simple to figure out why two kids were fighting. Know how you figured it out? You asked them, or you listened to their argument. The older I get, the more I realize that a virtual microcosm of all human relations exists in grammar school and high school.

I was one of those who pointed out that Islam encourages lying to the enemy. But, when terrorist leaders say, over, and over and OVER that the reason they are attacking us is because we are occupying their lands, shouldn't we at least CONSIDER America's history in the Middle East?

America has been bombing and performing missile strikes or other military action in the Middle East on an almost continuous basis for the last 25 years - more than 25 years. Did you know that? Is that how you win hearts and minds?

I'd also like to add some other interesting tid-bits gleaned from the Ron Paul video.

Our government is spending more than 75 billion on intelligence and are getting almost nothing for the money.

We are paying a fortune for "security" and are getting nothing but an increasing amount of spying on American citizens.

There is a problem when you concede that your government requires this sum of money and this level of daily surveilance ability.

It never gives the money back, and it never gives the power back.

Our enemy is a few hundred to a few thousand, and our military ability is amazing. Theirs amounts to improvised devices they glue to the bottom of their shoes. If they are such a thrreat, exterminate them. But don't lose any more American lives in an unConstitutional and costly occupation -- which is also pointless.

And the irrational FEAR that has been installed in even rational Objectivists over the "dire threat" has lead many of them to accept the horrific consequences (in terms of the size and scope of government). Truly, a sad day.

Finally, if you accept the premise that al Quaeda is not a top 3 pressing problem, as I have outlined in my essay, then none of this makes a damned bit of difference, and again, this is an objection that Ron Paul is not tailor-made-perfect for a particular Objectivist, so they will not support him.

And you people wonder why non-Objectivists look at Objectivism as such a curiosity?

Heck, Ellen...

Ross Elliot's picture

...let's not bring the mystics into this.

"Seems to me that unless there's a major ousting of current incumbents in 2010, we can't expect "proper" elections in 2012 -- ironically the year when the Mayan Calendar predicts the end of the world."

As I said, if the Tea Parties can *organise*, then Armageddon may be forestalled.

If you can't beat 'em, learn from them. The community organisers have done their job well and accelerated Rand's Wave to tsunami proportions. It's time the torchbearers of liberty learned a trick or two. November 2010 is the test run for 2012. Take the test.

I feel your pain, Robert.

Ellen Stuttle's picture

"I'm literally surrounded by Obama supporters and at least one Sierra Club supporter every sodding day. I challenged my work mates to a quiz on the American Revolution. Most scored 14 out of 20. I got 18 out of 20 and I was born in New Zealand FFS! Americans appear to have no concept of their own damned history. So yeah, I'm scared of what's going to happen in the next 3 years."

It's like that across this land, in practically every institution of "higher learning," with few exceptions.

Up shit creek without a paddle, and ruining the minds of the next generation (most of which, at this point, have already been rotted anyway before they reach second grade).

The younger Americans, incredibly many of them, "have no concept of their own damned history," read in textbooks not about anything worthy in their history, have no understanding of economics -- or even of logic. I'd hate to tell you the sort of stuff Larry got from incoming freshman re their comprehension of basic logic upon his detailing basic logical flaws in AGW alarmism (he gave a freshman-level course last semester). Some of the kids couldn't even grasp simple issues of logic by the end of the course.

Seems to me that unless there's a major ousting of current incumbents in 2010, we can't expect "proper" elections in 2012 -- ironically the year when the Mayan Calendar predicts the end of the world.

Ellen

No mischaracterisation. Ron

Richard Wiig's picture

No mischaracterisation. Ron Paul is completely and utterly ignorant of Islam and the motivation of Jihadists. The evidence is right here in his own words:

Brilliant observation, Robert

atlascott's picture

"And in the case of America, what do you expect our enemies will do if a second civil war breaks out? Do you expect them to sit passively on the sidelines and allow America to recover and rejuvenate itself as a super-power?"

And this is something that no one -- not anarchists, not sit-onp0the-sidelines Objectivists -- NO ONE talks about.

Erase this government right now, with this population and with many of the same players on the scene as we have now - and is a freedom loving utopia going to spring up, or a Socialist dictatorship unhampered by our Constitution going to spring up?

Objectivists take too much for granted that the blood of tyrants will result in a better world -- somehow.

That's is not thinking at all, and I do not like it. There are any number of powerful, populous groups who would use any means necessary to get control, and freedom-loving and rational people are not the most populous, positioned or well-armed to do so.

"what they can expect if they keep going down this path"

Robert's picture

Linz, I don't think the Statist are scared of that. I think they want it because they think that they can pull an October Revolution on the USA if it ever came to that.

And I'm not entirely sure that the are wrong.

All I hear in the media and at this University is a drum-beat of pro-Statism and even pro-socialism. The latter is a given - I'm at a University. But the former is frightening. I had a Republican sing the praises of Alan Greenspan last year FFS! The once robust sense of American independence is being replaced by the moribund complacency. People want to wait and see what will happen. Little do they know that if this bill and Amnesty take hold, you won't be able to shift it without dynamite.

IMHO, this attitude must be changed and now. And if I can't rely on objectivists to help me, then I'll hold my nose and support Paul and Palin and whomever else agrees with me on this point (well almost anyone else, a certain peddler of books springs to mind). This is a short term alliance, predicated on ending the dominance of anti-constitutionalists in the house, senate and (as was apparent from his comments to Brett Bier) the White house.

I know this scourge has to be stopped. I grew up in a state that America seemingly is seeking to become. 80-years ago NZ passed cradle-to-the-grave Nanny Statism and now practically the entire country is on welfare in some form or other. The only politicians who can get elected are those that promise the status quo or more welfare.

The only reason this can stand is that foreigners are providing the capital to fund it. NZ's population is barely greater than the smallest State in the USA so it works for now. But who will pick up the USA's tab?

Reagan had it right. This is the last bastion of freedom in the world. If we loose it here there is nowhere left to run to.

And I do not understand those who wait for a revolt or a descent into Atlas Shrugged style chaos. In the arena of ideas it is the defenders of capitalism that hold the advantage over the statists. But the rules of the debating chamber do not apply on a battlefield or in the world of Atlas Shrugged. To wait for those is to give up your greatest advantage over the drooling beast. And what do you get in return, to face the beast on a ground of his choosing in a contest of muscle and might? That makes no sense. Perhaps the likes of Billy Beck might welcome it. I do not.

Frankly, I'm not confident that that is a contest that we could win right now. This should explain to you why I shudder every time I hear the Jeffersonian line about the tree of liberty being watered. I suspect that it would be mainly martyrs and no tyrants being bled to sustain it. That is in addition to my personal conviction that civil war must only even be the last resort - especially while we still have the right to assemble freely and speak our minds.

And as for Paul's anarcho-saddamitism. I don't agree with Scott that Al Quaeda is weakening. The fighting has died down on the border because Summer and Spring are the only times you can fight in Afghanistan. I'm worried that Al Quaeda is winning in Pakistan. See how many brazen attacks on the government have occurred. They assassinated the relatively moderate Benazir Bhutto FFS!

But strangely enough, now Paul is part of the house minority and no longer has any possible influence on how the President conducts the war (at least that's the way I see it), he is in a position to have a net positive effect on the war-effort that he so despises.

If the politicians take on board any of the economic policies he's advocating (eg auditing the Fed, opposing deficits, opposing a rise in the debt limit) then the economy will improve and the troops on the battle line can buy more of the Predator drones and Hellfire missiles they are using to kill the Taleban/Al Quaeda leadership in Pakistan.

Yeah, I am being pragmatic. But what choice do I have at this time, faced with the threats we face? Other than the ARC, who else among the philosophically consistent defenders of capitalism are actually doing anything substantive?

Disagree

atlascott's picture

Yes, they are determined, but they are not positioned NOW as they were THEN.

The ridiculous and meaningless security measures put into place do virtually NOTHING to help us.

But they infringe upon us all and we all pay for it.

You are entitled to your opinion, and with respect, you are thousands of miles away.

I am WATCHING closet Socialists dismantle any hope at recovery.

And you want to play along with the misdirection? Go ahead.

I will not, and I will do everything in my power to wake people up to the misdirection.

Ron Paul is dead on when he suggested the use of letters of marque and reprisal, and otherwise, leave them to their desert. If we cannot find them, them pound their civilization into dust from afar. and force Muslims and ethnic Middle Easterners to submit to searches, scans, and background checks before we let them onto an a jet.

Simple, inexpensive, unintrusive.

Popular mischaracterization

atlascott's picture

While I agree with you that Dr. Paul's position is that the more America sticks its nose into business that is not its business, the more we can look forward to terrorist attacks, the details of his positions is much more nuanced than that.

I do not think Dr. Paul has EVER said that "Americans have brought it upon themselves." Explanation versus justification.

This is more mischaracterization.

Those who know me, know that I understand what Islam is. Believe me, Islam is not as big a problem for us right now as our other concerns, and still, the path we are pursuing now is suicide. Occupation is a money and life pit, from which we are not likely to see a return unless we commit young Americans to be be babysitters to the world in perpetuity.

Where is authority for that found in the Constitution?

You think Obama understands Islam? Think Bush did, when he said "Islam means peace"?

This objection, Richard, falls squarely under the category of objection that Paul is not ARIyan perfect. Fiddling whilst Rome burns.

In EVERY way, Paul is objectively superior to both Bush and Obama , if ONLY because he has INTEGRITY. As a man, he is an order of magnitude more moral as WE define morality, than either.

Thus, movement in the right direction, and a presenter of solutions to our most pressing issue -- not a Muslim invasion, but rather, an implosion from within.

We can continue to quibble and let the Progressives and GOP turn this place into a totalitarian Socialist dictatorship, or we can act to support a candidate who is 100% better as a moral man, 100% right on the most pressing issues, and only 80% right on the less pressing issues.

Seems a very clear choice to me.

Scott

Olivia's picture

Our biggest problems are domestic. al Quaeda is a bee sting on a cancer patient, and you want to ignore the cancer and focus on the bee sting.

I disagree. More like a tank threatening to roll over a cancer patient. Bee-sting?? Gimme me a break! Protecting your borders is imperative to even being able to perform surgery. You have very determined enemies.

Helpless in the face of

Richard Wiig's picture

Helpless in the face of Islamofascist attack? You're dead wrong.

He advocates isolating them - not dealing with them.

He actually shows that he has zero understanding of them. He thinks that US foreign policy is their motivation, and that Americans have brought it upon themselves. Someone who has no understanding cannot make an adequate defence.

Just watched...

Ross Elliot's picture

...Hannity interview GOP chairman, Michael Steele.

Hannity said what was needed was a new Conservative-Republican party. Steele kinda bristled. Obviously he ain't convinced just yet.

If the GOP hierarchy seeks to manipulate the Tea Parties--essentially use them as a paramilitary wing--then the only solution is a takeover of the GOP before the assault on the presidency.

I've no doubt most Tea Parties are thinking, now what? No point in trying to keep the GOP honest, cos it's not. The Tea Parties--if organised--certainly have the numbers to become a force majeure at GOP primaries.

Robt

Lindsay Perigo's picture

If you're talking about me. Then you're wrong. I've never said that you are contemptible, far from it.

No dear. 'Twasn't you, 'twas the big fella. He has his reasons, obviously.

And I know that Ron Paul isn't perfect. I know that Scott Brown is essentially a RHINO. I know that the GOP won't be our salvation. But what else would you suggest? Sit on our hands, stockpile guns and ammunition and await the next 'shot that was heard around the world?'

You know I don't suggest anything of the sort. What I suggest is making it very clear to the statist bastards what they can expect if they keep going down this path: another shot that will be heard around the world. The symbolism of nooses on liberty trees could be very powerful in this regard.

Ron Paul is not only not perfect, he's so IMperfect that I couldn't countenance or contemplate rooting for him at this point.

Fuck me, anyone would think that you'd turned into a Californian.

No to both.

Ah, Robert

Ross Elliot's picture

I said "someone like" Paul, meaning someone with a strict limited government perspective.

I also said earlier, "But I agree with Aaron that Ron Paul can't make it to the presidency".

"deemed me contemptible"

Robert's picture

WTF?

If you're talking about me. Then you're wrong. If you're talking about Scott, I'll bet you $100 that you're even more wrong. I just think that you are just talking out of your arse on this point. And you are. I apologize for not keeping an even tone with my friends - a moral failing to be sure. I'm sorry. But I am deadly serious about not taking this Healthcare crap lying down.

This whole situation makes me fucking mad and I can't for the life of me see why you can't understand the simplest of points: We need all the help we can get to fix this problem and unlike the majority of objectivists Ron Paul is actually on the bloody barricade facing the enemy. This democrat juggernaut needs to be halted. Now! Letting it roll over America and hoping that the unpleasant experience will wake America up isn't a guaranteed fix.

The idiots who voted for him could just as easily turn about and award him even more power to fix the problem. FDR anyone? It's happened before and it will happen again unless someone stands up and makes a pro-constitutional argument.

I'm literally surrounded by Obama supporters and at least one Sierra Club supporter every sodding day. I challenged my work mates to a quiz on the American Revolution. Most scored 14 out of 20. I got 18 out of 20 and I was born in New Zealand FFS! Americans appear to have no concept of their own damned history. So yeah, I'm scared of what's going to happen in the next 3 years.

And I know that Ron Paul isn't perfect. I know that Scott Brown is essentially a RHINO. I know that the GOP won't be our salvation. But what else would you suggest? Sit on our hands, stockpile guns and ammunition and await the next 'shot that was heard around the world?'

I can't do that.

All the years I've spent studying military history for fun have taught me one thing: war is something not entered into lightly. Once you begin a war, all bets are off. The winner may not be the most virtuous one. And in the case of America, what do you expect our enemies will do if a second civil war breaks out? Do you expect them to sit passively on the sidelines and allow America to recover and rejuvenate itself as a super-power?

If it comes to refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and martyrs - so be it. But I'm not going to stay my hand now and bloody well encourage it to occur by my inaction.

But don't for one second think that my esteem for you and your achievements has diminished just because I think you've temporarily taken leave of your senses. Fuck me, anyone would think that you'd turned into a Californian. Sticking out tongue

It is contemptible

atlascott's picture

to describe a lover of liberty such as Ron Paul as contemptible, when your reasons for doing so are factually inaccurate.

You understand that it was the return of a turn of phrase you used. The debate is still friendly, as far as I am concerned.

"Edit—and re the bee-sting/cancer analogy: I believe appeasement abroad and socialism at home are part of the same cancer."

Ron Paul believes in neither appeasement abroad nor socialism at home. I find this description, frankly, shocking. In fact, his beliefs are directly contrary to those you ascribe to him. Damning a good man without, evidently, knowing a damned thing about what he really advocates or endorses? Perhaps contemptible.

You do not support your position by mis-characterizing what Dr. Paul is about, or by ignoring the crisis and the context.

"he's the long term response"

Robert's picture

Ross, he's 74! Assuming he still has all his marbles, he's really only got a few years of useful political life in him. Long term solution, he cannot be no matter whether Linz and Robert Bidinotto et al. say about him is true or not.

Walk Away Lind Say

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I'm not one to walk away from an argument normally, but I can see it's best I do from this one since my principal adversary in what I thought was a friendly debate has deemed me contemptible.

You guys are there. If you truly think Ron Paul is the man for the hour, then knock yourselves out. *Of course* you don't need my sanction or support, which is of precisely zilch significance. I do reserve the right, however, to express my view (as well as to listen to "pretty music"), which is that this man is not "THE Objectivist moral imperative." This is not "placating the ghost of Ayn Rand." It's recognising that someone who doesn't mind if rights are violated as long as it's the state that does it rather than the Feds, and who offers succour to America's sworn enemies while withholding it from her sworn friends (Israel) can scarcely be an Objectivist pin-up in any context.

We're all agreed this is a crisis. I believe that salvation, if it's to come at all, will be from the grassroots—and it may well involve the tree of liberty being refreshed with the blood of tyrants and martyrs. Or the hour may well deliver the man before bloodshed is necessary. But that man is not Ron Paul. On that we disagree. So be it.

Edit—and re the bee-sting/cancer analogy: I believe appeasement abroad and socialism at home are part of the same cancer.

Gutsy summation, Robert

Ross Elliot's picture

"This is my fucking home now and I'll be damned if I'm going to let Obama burn it fucking down to placate the ghost of Ayn Rand. This is an emergency IMHO. Normal rules do not apply. I think that Ayn said something about that somewhere once."

Although, I'd not characterise someone like Paul as an emergency response to an emergency situation. I'd say he's the long term response to an old problem.

Jefferson principle:

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none..."

And of course, Jefferson never meant don't hit the bastards hard if they get uppity, he meant extend the hand of trade and the principles of freedom, but if that hand is slapped, clench it into a fist.

Damn straight, Scotty

Ross Elliot's picture

You accidentally stole my next post, and bloody well said.

"Our biggest problems are domestic. al Quaeda is a bee sting on a cancer patient, and you want to ignore the cancer and focus on the bee sting."

True to his free market principles, Paul introduced bills to authorise letters of marque.

If those bills had been enacted, I'm certain the heads of the terrorist networks would have been cut off years ago. But, no, it wasn't even used as an *option*.

"It would be dismissed as impolite."

Robert's picture

By the media elite yes.

One of the things people have to learn is that the vast majority of the major professional news organizations are no longer involved in the business of discovering and disseminating the truth. They are part of the entertainment industry now. And stories wherein some bloke rings up Bart Stupak and calls him a traitorous fuck are being blown up as an example of the 'death threats' faced by the poor darlings in Washington.

One of the things America is realizing (judging from the decline in Newspaper sales and the slide in viewership for MSNBC, CNN etc.) is that you can't trust the media. The level of skepticism isn't anywhere where it needs to be yet. I hypothesize for instance that certain demographic groups still rely on the mainstream media for their news which may explain the poll numbers on things like Global Warming and Obama's personal popularity. So the strategy of not doing things like placing nooses in trees etc. isn't cowardice, it's an attempt to deny the main-stream media ammunition.

I don't really buy that avoidance strategy. But then I rate journalists below politicians and pedophiles on the scum-bag scale.

A better strategy to fight the MSM would be to protest them and highlight their silence on issues of plagiarism, out-right distortions, and superficial investigations of the issue. The Tea Party movement would be better off personally protesting the Anderson Coopers in the media and asking them WHY they allowed Pelosi to get away with statements like 'we have to pass this bill so you can find out what is in it.'

A complicit MSM is one of the struts that secures Obama's presidency. It should be protested along with him. These a-holes need to be shamed into doing their job and their audience needs to know that they are being ripped off.

A good example is this or this (if you can't see them without subscribing, do so, it is free and they only want your name and an e-mail address). I know! I know! Klavan is an unapologenic christian who uses sarcasm and passion (eg emotion) to communicate his point. So obviously he is the anti-christ.

Note that this last is a preemptive bid to answer the charge that PJTV is worthless because it had a few god-botherers on it. You'd think that an adult with a fully active brain would be able to filter that out and realize that Klavan and Whittle are on our side. But alas...

------

As for Ron Paul inhibiting the war effort. I disagree. He may not be for it directly but he has no real influence on the short-term military and political policies. But he is for fixing the economy. And without the economy the soldiers on the front line aren't going to get the bullets and jet-fuel that they need to fight Al Quaeda.

The Bush/Obama strategy of borrowing money from China, Russia and other opportunistic semi (and fully) tyrant states who'd sleep with the Ayatollah for a Klondike bar. This strategy is going to end up putting China and Russia in a position to influence US foreign policy by threatening to call in the loans.

It is already happening: there is this story about a Chinese General recommending that the Chinese government sell off US treasuries after Obama murmured something about Taiwan. Do you not remember that the push to replace the Greenback as the World's standard currency originated in Moscow? This was (IMHO) partly inspired as revenge for Bush sending a US guided missile destroyer to Poti to thwart Putin's plan to swallow up all of Georgia.

Long term, small government advocates like Paul who want to retire the debt and deficits and to open all US-territory for oil exploration are going to strengthen the US military in terms of enabling it to remain independent of fair-weather Allies.

That's how bloody twisted the situation is Linz. It is a REAL crisis.

-----

And as for your sanction on supporting Paul. We neither need it nor seek it. You know our reasons for it - damn us if you will. But I don't give a rat's arse what you think on this issue. You are wrong. I didn't invest all that time and money and effort into becoming a US citizen to start my life off in a 2-bit banana republic. I left that behind in NZ. And if supporting a 74-year old pro-abortion anti-war small government conservative like Paul is going to benefit me in the short term, then I'll do so. The situation demands it.

This is my fucking home now and I'll be damned if I'm going to let Obama burn it fucking down to placate the ghost of Ayn Rand. This is an emergency IMHO. Normal rules do not apply. I think that Ayn said something about that somewhere once.

Not so sure, Sandi

atlascott's picture

"As with Palin, they would both coerce subordination of all women to the dictatorship of a parasite."

I find abortion to be a real tragedy every time it happens, except in rare circumstances. I wish it never had to.

But, I am not in the business of telling women what to do with their bodies. I do not think government should be in that business at all, unless the fetus is viable outside the mother, and we are talking about partial birth abortion. THAT is a travesty.

But in for a penny, in for a pound. If the government is going to be involved in this business, who is going to care and pay for the child? If a government mandates a birth, then government had better care for the child. Can you think of a single thing government is LESS able to ably do than raise a child?

Anyway, yes, religious people are AGAINST abortion, every kind.

But the difference between a Bible thumper and a principled proponent of freedom is: a BT would use every means necessary to keep it a Federal issue, and then outlaw abortions across the board, and a PPF would not.

Ron Paul thinks that it is a local or State issue, and that is a better decision than granting the Feds power to tell a woman that she has to carry a child she does not want or can not care for.

Of course, the problem is: letting States or municipalities pass such laws does not grant a woman domain over her body. Making sure women do not become State chattel is important.

Allowing the State into the decision-making process at all is pre-empting the woman's freedom to one degree or another.

My point is: saying that one is "against" abortions generally is like saying that one is against amputation or gunshot wounds.

Ron Paul is not a Bible thumper nor a guy would would use unConstitutional means to personal ends.

Great post Scott. I

Aaron's picture

Great post Scott. I especially liked: "al Quaeda is a bee sting on a cancer patient, and you want to ignore the cancer and focus on the bee sting."

Yep

Ellen Stuttle's picture

Scott: " [...] my country is turning into a totalitarian dictatorship because of the irrational FEAR that you subscribe to. No thanks, pal. Statists are milking fear like a cow fit to burst."

They started doing so with Bush's announcement of a War on Terror.

Now what we have here is everything in place for a U.S. Gestapo -- and brainwashed youth groups heiling. The big enemy is the U.S. government, not al Quaeda.

And Ron Paul couldn't ban abortions even if he wanted to.

Ellen

Context

atlascott's picture

"But that bastard would ban abortion and leave you utterly helpless in the face of Islamofascist attack. He's contemptible."

You are contemptible.

He is anti-abortion, but would not issue an executive order to ban abortions. In fact, he would move to abolish the executive order, one of the most evil and perverted devices of government injustice ever devised.

He is 100% four square AGAINST abortion. No question. He has also said the Federal government doesn't belong in the mix. It is a State or local rights question. That is a move in the right direction, in our current political context.

Helpless in the face of Islamofascist attack? You're dead wrong.

He advocates isolating them - not dealing with them. Not trading with them. Getting off their oil. And I do not think you will ever find anything he has ever written saying that he would not retaliate or strike to prevent and imminent attack. He just does not want the US to have military bases all over the world, and sticking our noses where they do not belong. And, most importantly, he does not believe in nation building and eternal occupation. Nation building and occupation is not what America is about, and never should have and never should be.

RE: Blowback - it does not blame the victim. I do not think you understand the concept. When you stick your nose in a domestic squabble and one or both participants punches you in the nose, that's blowback. It does not mean that they were JUSTIFIED in punching you, just one explanation as to why it happened.

Context, context, context.

You and I have had this disagreement before, Linz. And even back then, you were convinced that the biggest problem the US faces is a couple hundred al Quaeda operatives, scattered all over the world. And in response, my country is turning into a totalitarian dictatorship because of the irrational FEAR that you subscribe to. No thanks, pal. Statists are milking fear like a cow fit to burst.

Our biggest problems are domestic. al Quaeda is a bee sting on a cancer patient, and you want to ignore the cancer and focus on the bee sting.

You are dead, dead wrong. Stop focusing all of your attention on pretty music. Nero fiddled whilst Rome burned, but you prefer opera, it seems.

Your strategy -- listening to music and telling Americans that they are wimps for not "rising up" -- is close to pointless.

Ron's son Rand is currying favor with Tea Partiers. Perhaps he will get his Senate seat and run for President with his Father's blessing and support. Maybe he will talk tough about al Quaeda and support a woman's right to choose and then you'll support him, huh?

Ron Paul is not contemptible. He is one of perhaps 5 decent people in Congress and the guy has spent his life trying to reign in a runaway Congress and he SUPPORTS and PROMOTES Ayn Rand - and THAT'S contemptible?

Take a step back and understand the context and the precipice we are on.

As Robert says, we are long past pissing on viable solution because he is not ARIyan perfect. We are on the precipice of catastrophe. Now is not the time to sit on our hands.

Except that John Galt...

Ellen Stuttle's picture

...made a speech in a book that is currently selling enormous numbers of copies.

Ellen

If John Galt ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

If John Galt were to make a speech, it would be dismissed as impolite.

You are RIGHT Lindsay

Sandi's picture

As with Palin, they would both coerce subordination of all women to the dictatorship of a parasite.

Who else begs freedom? Who else holds a platform for freedom loving people?

If John Galt were to make a speech, perhaps it had better be now or never?

Darlings

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Don't mean to trivialise, but please take care to close your italics properly, otherwise you screw up the whole thread.

I don't understand this obsession with Ron Paul, an anti-abortion, Christian Saddamite and proponent of 9/11 as "blowback." And I won't for a second countenance this obsession, even as I allow his cheerleader here to have his say unimpeded. In my view, Ron Paul brings decent ideas, such as abolishing the Federal Reserve and the IRS, into disrepute by the thoroughly evil ideas he advocates at the same time. He makes me sick.

RON PAUL IS NOT THE ANSWER and should not get a dime of your money or an ounce of your sympathy.

In my view. Support whom you damn well like. Your life, your money. But that bastard would ban abortion and leave you utterly helpless in the face of Islamofascist attack. He's contemptible.

So whatever you do, do it with your eyes and brain open. And don't expect *my* blessing.

Kudos to Ron Paul

Sandi's picture

Ron Paul: "Health Insurance: If this was a good programme and everyone liked it you would not need 16,500 armed thugs coming at you to put you in jail if you do not follow the rules."

Anchor man: "If this was a good programme then you would not need coercion., using the power of the state as a coercive body rather than as a representative of the American people's will. There's something deeply deeply wrong with that."

By the way. Ron Paul is almost 74 years old - KUDOS and Standing Ovation from me!

Nah! The Gadston Flag

Robert's picture

is a much better and far less ambiguous symbol that makes the point just as clearly.

But it isn't as if people haven't been busy inventing protest symbols...
here and here.

Gotcha

atlascott's picture

"...the Progressive Illuminati, if you will. "

Yeah, probably not.

"I know that you and I share the belief that a velvet revolution is better than a bloody one. "

This is true, so true.

And please do not disparage your ability to communicate, because I love reading your posts and love your way with words, and I hope that you will take that in the hetero sense it is intended!

"I don't think that it was organized. "

Robert's picture

If I'd have articulated what I meant better, I think that you'd probably agree with me.

Yes, Obama's agenda is straight out of the Progressive wish list and there are many folks working towards that. But I literally don't think that there is some overarching organizing conspiracy driving this - the Progressive Illuminati, if you will.

Probably an unnecessary point of order to make in this audience but I'm keenly aware of my inability to clearly articulate what I mean oftentimes and I was being wary of sounding like a trufer, birther, black helicopter wing-nut.

---

As for the GOP. Couldn't agree more. But last time I checked, Paul and others were still a minority in the GOP. One of the realistic short-term goals that I see is that the Tea Parties either by design or by accident will allow Paul and Coburn and the other small-government Republicans to take back control of the GOP from the very trough dwellers of that you and I disdain.

I'd like to see the GOP gone and a proper, robust defender of capitalism and individual liberty arise out of its ashes or even in spite of those them. But that's going to take time and money and a realization from the voting public that this is who they should be voting for. The problem is that unless someone displaces the Democrat majority in the House and Senate in November of this year, the other things that Obama has planned (Cap and trade, amnesty and Christ knows what else) are going to go through at an even faster pace than this bill.

Someone has to put the hand-brake on in November or there won't be (IMHO) any time to plan a way of getting out of the coming disaster without bloodshed. I know that you and I share the belief that a velvet revolution is better than a bloody one. In so far as the Tea Party and Sarah Palin and Uncle Tom Cobbly can help out in slowing down Obama in November, I'm all in favor of them. But they play no role in my long term ideas and hopes for salvation of this nation.

Yes, Robert, but...

atlascott's picture

I cannot agree with a lot of what you write.

"So the Tea Parties tried yelling at politicians, writing them and mounting fax attacks."

Yes, that IS what they did. They vented their anger, and the least informed became the butt of jokes regarding their ignorance in the mass media. This was and is hardly "...plac[ing] a blow-torch down the Y-fronts of this has-been offish excuse for a Republican opposition..."
I DO agree that the Tea Party movement is to be commended, because they are the only Americans to have done ANYTHING -- and they have put Objectivists to shame in that regard.

But the GOP is too politially entrenched to even CONSIDER upturning the hog trough, and so their path is clear -- join with the Left to discredit the TPM. And they have.

"I don't think that it was organized. "

Disagree. I see this as part of a Progressive, Socialist and radical racist agenda. I guess it depends on what we mean by "plan," right? This has not been charted out in every detail. But the destruction of the US education system is part of their plan. Political correctness is part of their plan. Allegations of racism being the new tool of blackballing is part of the plan. Obama's election was part of the plan. Domestic security forces, like armed IRS agents, are part of the totalitarian plan.

Too many coincidences not to have been part of an overall strategy now coming to fruition.

Where Progressives had a plan, others had only a purposeless, daily vacillating personal and political agenda. Like playing chess against someone who makes merely random moves against your considered strategy, you are eventually going to win, but yours is no less a plan just because you did not foresee every random move your opponent might make.

"But that will change. It always has in America. When people realize the only way out of this mess is to tighten their belts, divest themselves of Nanny State and put their shoulders to the capitalist wheel they will do so. They must. It's either that or see their children go hungry, barefoot and shivering."

Apologies, Robert, but this sounds like wishful thinking. Other than the Revolution, when has this happened in American history? I see an American history as a slow but accelerating march from the Founder's principles uniformly towards large central government and totalitarianism.

When they have won the culture war with the majority of Americans, and bought their votes with promises of benefits to be provided on your back, how is that going to work?

"So yes, I am holding out a little bit of hope for the Tea Party movement ..."

Yes, so am I. I just think that they will continue to be hammered as morons and racist by mass media, and so their numbers will remain fringe, and those with something to lose (leader with a following already) will not associate with the TPM. Palin's desperate, I think.

"The revolution we need is in the heads of our fellow citizens. And the first idea they need to comprehend is that the need for action is URGENT! That much the Tea Parties are delivering. The next step is to remind the people what is being stolen from them and who is to blame (ie them and their intransigence). "

Agreed, but this is where US educational indoctrination comes in. Multiculturalism and Native American poetry being substituted for Civics and American History. We laughed at it at the time, but ideas have consequences and we are about to live them.

And, this is where the "hands-off" Objectivist approach has been a disaster.

There may yet be enough people with common sense to turn this around. But the enemy is more organized and will use lies and violence to hold on to their increasingly-eggregious theft. Until and unless there is blood, the common sense Americans will not rouse themselves, and by then, with cameras on every sreet corner, a disarmed populace, and every branch of the Federal government armed, it may be too late.

Well ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... hang a Sons of Liberty symbol on 'em then! And quit worrying about what people might think. Christ, it makes one realise the success of the other prong of the Gramsci/Alinsky revolution by stealth. 1) Infiltrate every institution and corrupt it with weasel words; 2) Socialize every child so that it grows up in abject terror of what others might say.

Nooses

atlascott's picture

Nooses just get Americans branded as racist. The noose has one and only one overwhelming symbolic meaning in American culture. The lynching of African Americans. And as I have said, nothing discredits a message faster here.

Hang some nooses from some trees!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

If this were done all over the country, even with effigy-less nooses, I'm sure the historical allusion would eventually sink in. And Sons of Liberty needs to be revived right now.

But you guys have been there before.

Robert's picture

Yep. And whether it ends up in an armed revolution or a velvet one, the only way to ensure a that liberty prevails is to encourage people to have people having spirited philosophical debates in public (or public bars).

The philosophical momentum to sustain the Revolution through 8-odd years of hard fighting came from rugged, passionate political debates held in public.

The Tea Parties are a necessary first step. I pray that the political revolt that is required to rescue this country from the abyss will be a velvet revolution along the lines of the Fall of the Berlin wall or the Liberation of the Baltic States of the Ukraine. This is not going to be over by Christmas 2010. It is going to have to continue long after Obama has been voted out of office. The bloke that follows him needs to know that the people of this country are alert and are watching.

But either way change comes, objectivists need to stand up and let their opinions be known and now! Otherwise the void will be filled by the Marxists and Maoists and the useful idiots just as it has been in Europe and Britain.

Fiddling while America burns ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Big Fella says:

The charging bull is easily and almost always dispatched by the calm, calculating matador.

No one is arguing for blind anger as far as I can see. Some anger would be an advance. Rational rage would be exceptional—and all that's required: "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds," and all that.

No, absolutely nothing is going to happen until there is blood.

You got it. It will be messy for a bit. But you guys have been there before.

The thing about the Tea Party is

Robert's picture

that I don't think that people do not yet know what to do about Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Previously, politically disgusted people would protest by "don't vote in only encourages the bastards!" That isn't going to work anymore. There isn't a quick, legal, peaceful fix to this.

Obama isn't the sort of politician that hasn't been seen in the US in recent History. He's a bare-faced lying leftist ideologue who would never have stood the glare of the media spotlight even 12 years ago. I mean how do you fight this guy if you are a peace-loving American who believes in the Republic and its division of powers and the sanctity of the ballot box etc.?

So the Tea Parties tried yelling at politicians, writing them and mounting fax attacks. That used to work, but they haven't met a crew as determined as Obama's Whitehouse to establish their leader as the first to pass a Universal Healthcare bill - regardless of what was in it. And I mean that literally. Pelosi was recorded as saying that 'we have to pass this bill so that we can find out what is in it." These people don't give a damn about the process. That much is only just beginning to dawn on the Tea-Party and the compliant media.

This problem goes beyond hubris on the part of Pelosi, Obama, and Reid. This is the perfect political storm. And I don't just mean in Washington. ACORN & SEIU aren't above rigging elections. Couple that with the Democrat's State strategy of making sure their guys are in each State's Sec of State position so their hand-picked lackeys can 'certify' the validity of close election results like the one in Minnesota.

This is a multilevel assault on the political fabric of America.

I don't think that it was organized.

I just think that the misanthropes in the media and political arenas reached critical mass right about the time that a credit bubble burst and Bush mis-managed a poorly-justified (that is, I agreed with Iraq, but I had to come up with my own reasons. Bush couldn't articulate his way out of a wet paper bag when it came to Iraq) foreign war. Up popped Obama! Hillary was the wrong Democrat to oppose him as was McCain the wrong Republican. His walk into the Whitehouse was a cake walk. He literally didn't have to come up with any coherrent policies - he could make them up as he went along AND HE HAS! The Healthcare bill wasn't his, it was written by Congress and their lobbyist hangers on.

The reason he hasn't had any orchestrated push-back yet is that the opposition have no idea what he is, what he believes in and they certainly weren't ready for a President who doesn't give a damn about Parliamentary procedure. They've yet to realize that voting him out isn't going to be a fait a compli. He has a machine - both legal and illegal - behind him that is determined to keep power. That too is something that people and the Republican party have to realize.

Couple that with the fact that we are actually at the start of a world wide depression and people are wondering what the number of the bus that just hit them was. To expect sophisticated political thunderbolts out of common people who hitherto have ignored politics or never thought about it until 5 seconds before entering the ballot box is a bit much. Especially against an opponent like this current Democrat party.

But that will change. It always has in America. When people realize the only way out of this mess is to tighten their belts, divest themselves of Nanny State and put their shoulders to the capitalist wheel they will do so. They must. It's either that or see their children go hungry, barefoot and shivering.

I think that you will find that the Tea Party movement will not remain the same. It will evolve. It will adopt an agenda - even if only an anti incumbent one (which is a start). And as for charges of racism, I can't see too many people outside of the urban centers taking note of that. Especially when they realize that the benefits they were hoping for don't come into being before 2012. The people who believe that an entire movement can be smeared by the alleged actions of one individual are already in the collectivist maw and are unlikely to be enticed out of it with reason.

So yes, I am holding out a little bit of hope for the Tea Party movement - provided that people like Ron Paul and Yaron Brook and Ed Hudgins get out and get in front of their meetings and actually speak from the heart. But effecting peaceful change is going to be a painfully slow process. There is a lot of intellectual inertia to overcome. Will it be overcome before the economy melts down? I've got no bloody idea how to predict that. But while we still have the right to free speech we need to exercise it and encourage others to join us. The revolution we need is in the heads of our fellow citizens. And the first idea they need to comprehend is that the need for action is URGENT! That much the Tea Parties are delivering. The next step is to remind the people what is being stolen from them and who is to blame (ie them and their intransigence).

And like I said: if Ron Paul is the one to do it. All the better. I'm not putting all my eggs in the Tea party basket. That would be foolish. But it would be foolish to ignore them as impotent or insignificant. They may not have spawned a third party. But if all they do his place a blow-torch down the Y-fronts of this has-been offish excuse for a Republican opposition -- then they will have done the country sterling service.

Anytime people gather to peacefully agitate for smaller government and individual liberty - like minded objectivists/Rand-friendly folks should show up to lend a voice and some philosophical direction.

Actually...

Ross Elliot's picture

..."Primarily, it is a failure of culture, of our education system, and our intellectuals, much as a rise of the Third Reich was."

That was a *triumph* of culture. It just happened to be the wrong one.

I know one thing about the Tea Party movement: it's populated by people who just want to be left alone to get on with their lives. These people are not professional agitators. They don't have a grudge against the world in general. They want to remove an obstacle and then go back to their lives.

This is what regular middle class folks do. They have nothing in common with the gangbanging progressives, who know how to organise because they've devoted their lives to organising and agitation. To them, agitation in pursuit of agenda *is* life. Witness the brutal display in the last week by Obama's political thugs in pursuit of their agenda.

I will add...

atlascott's picture

...that the few people who are imprisoned for failure to buy insurance or pay the vig on the corruption will hardly be the only victims.

This economy is done.

Between mass legalization, health care reform, increased tax, small and medium sized business with no political pull are going to go the way of the dodo. Large corporations will sustain themselves through crony capitalism, as they have during the long ride down to this point.

Break out those old photos of hobos in patched clothing. That's where we are headed.

Ayn Rand was a genius and a visionary. The flaw in Atlas Shrugged lies in her villains. They real ones are not going to beg Galt for help. They are going to shoot him square between the eyes because he represents the only threat to their continued hegemony over the dung heap -- the risk of enabling of man to exist and live as man. They do not care how low man sinks, as long as they are on the top of the dung heap.

Agreed, toa point

atlascott's picture

Robert, while I agree with you that the anger will not dissipate -- it is likely to get a lot worse -- anger is not a political platform, and the past year was a golden opportunity for Glenn Beck or someone with some prominence to adopt it and mold it INTO something.

The charging bull is easily and almost always dispatched by the calm, calculating matador.

That has not happened (the molding), and the window is closing. The GOP, fearing for its conservative hegemony, pisses on the Party. The Left casts it as the refuge of the ignorant and racist. In America, as soon as you are pegged as racist, everyone --EVERYONE-- runs from you as if you were radioactive.

So Sara Palin has co-opted the Tea Party? Well, that was months ago, and what has she done other than parlay some speaking engagements out of it?

No, it is fading into irrelevance.

If it were not, then where was the mass Tea Party uprising? The million people marching upon Washington?

It didn't happen and it is not going to happen.

No, absolutely nothing is going to happen until there is blood. As time goes by, I become increasingly convinced of that.

This place is going to be a fucking dump before anyone wakes up. And the ruling Party will say that it is a failure of capitalism, free markets, and that damned free speech.

In generations past, at least most Americans had a moral center and an ideological base from which to stand up and be counted.

The Progressives have done us in, I fear. The average kid today (the majority under, say, 35, and I am being generous) has no idea and sincerely believes that America is fundamentally corrupt and rotten and that the solution to our problems lie in consensus with the rest of the world, because they are more just or "do it better."

This is it, and we are seeing it, and it is squarely a failure of ideas, a failure of being willing to commit and challenge bad ideas.

Primarily, it is a failure of culture, of our education system, and our intellectuals, much as a rise of the Third Reich was.

Still, I am contributing to Paul, Beck, Brook. When other action becomes inevitable, that is the action I will take.

"The Tea Party Movement is dead"

Robert's picture

Disagree here. It is evolving. Into what, I don't know. But I expect that this anger and frustration will not dissipate.

What needs to happen is that principled men need to stand on the soap-box in front of the collective crowd and tell them what they don't want to hear: That the person responsible for this mess isn't Obama or Congress. It is the person they see in the mirror every day.

And I don't care if the person who tells them that is me or you or Ron Paul or Rand Paul or Harry Binswanger or Yaron Brook or Glenn Beck. I think it'd have more of an impact if everyone of us did this either to a crowd of thousands of Tea party folks or just your neighbors. But the time for sitting on the fence is done. We must prevent this disaster or we shall end up lamenting it.

So yeah, I'll be donating to Ron Paul AND the ARI at some point after I've looked at my Tax Return and my emergency savings fund (sorry Ron, but securing my own arse in this uncertain economic future comes first).

You can turn an opinion on a dime. You just need their focused attention and the right idea to correct their philosophical errors. The only good thing about how fast Obama is moving is that he is focusing people's attention (as Ross says, the US is in the home stretch). They can see just how fast their liberties can be destroyed and I don't believe that Pelosi and Obama are smart enough to know when to call it quits and be satisfied with their 'hope and change'.

Paul and Beck ticket?

Ellen Stuttle's picture

Any chance?

Paul's age is a huge negative to confidence in his lasting out a presidency, but what if Beck would sign on as running-mate? Any possibility at all of that happening?

Never mind details of disagreement with either. I did not believe until it happened that the Health Care bill would be rammed through. We're now totally in a "life-boat" situation.

Ross: "It became clear, especially after the election of Obama, that there was not much point in externally defending America if it was rotting from the inside out."

I date my thinking that to much earlier -- to 9/11/01. Larry and I were touring the Southwest at the time. I thought, from what I heard on the radio in the next days -- we often had the radio tuned to news -- that the attackers' victory had already been won, that the U.S. was going to proceed to destroy itself from within completely by scurrying for "security." But I didn't anticipate the accelerated slide toward totalitarianism happening as fast as it's been happening.

Ellen

Agree Scott

gregster's picture

-- with the sentiment. If he can't get there, I'd like Peter Schiff.

Well said, Scotty

Ross Elliot's picture

But I agree with Aaron that Ron Paul can't make it to the presidency.

Rand seems to be on the same wavelength as his father.

It became clear, especially after the election of Obama, that there was not much point in externally defending America if it was rotting from the inside out. And that internal rot will soon have a dramatic effect on America's reach and influence. Only an idiot could now fail to see that the home straight has been reached and the true defence of the Republic must be made against those who have sworn to defend the Constitution but instead have been disassembling it piece by piece.

At 74, you may be right

atlascott's picture

Ron Paul is 74 years old.

I do not know whether Rand Paul is in alignment with his fathers views.

He has not even won a KY senate seat, so is hardly the national force or name his father is.

Is he actually likely to lose

Aaron's picture

Is he actually likely to lose his seat in Congress? I'd hate to see him replaced there. As for president, I'm probably one of the few other Oists here who likes Ron Paul, but even minor policy criticisms aside, unfortunately I'm afraid he's too old to stand a chance pursuing PTOS and doubt he will run. If he did, running mate would be a huge deal and I don't know any possible liberty-respecting VP. Not that father+son ticket would fly, but just looking to the future in general - how's Rand Paul?

Aaron

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.